Satya Devi vs Rashpal Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 804 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No. 204

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU




                                                 SLA 13/2013 in
                                                 CONCR 60/2013

Satya Devi                                                     ..... Appellant (s)

                               Through :- Mr. R.S.Jamwal Advocate

                         V/s

Rashpal Ram                                                   .....Respondent(s)

                               Through :-    None

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE


                                     ORDER

CONCR 60/2013

1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 2012 days in

preferring an application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of

acquittal dated 26th July 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class (Forest), Jammu ['trial Court'] in file No.396/ Cr. Complaint titled

'Satya Devi V/s Rashpal Ram' for offence under Section 506 R.P.C.

2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that due to mistaken

advice, the applicant/appellant, instead of filing a criminal acquittal appeal,

initially filed a revision petition which was dismissed by this Court as not

maintainable. Thereafter, the learned counsel engaged by the

applicant/appellant filed a petition bearing 561-A CrPC No.89/2009 which too

was held not maintainable by this Court and dismissed vide order dated 30 th

August 2012. It is only after dismissal of the said petition, the applicant took

requisite steps for filing criminal acquittal appeal and, therefore, filed the

instant application seeking leave to file appeal along with an application for

condonation of delay. This is how the applicant has sought to explain the delay

of more than 2012 days. Though, the respondent appeared in person before the

Registry, but no objections to the application for condonation of delay have

been filed.

The application, for the reasons stated therein, is allowed and the

explanation tendered by the applicant for condonation of delay is accepted.

SLA 13/2013

1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal to challenge the

judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court whereby the respondent-accused

has been acquitted of the charges under Section 506 RPC.

2 Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having gone

through the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, I am of the view

that no case is made out for grant of special leave to file appeal.

3 From a perusal of the judgment of acquittal, sought to be

challenged by way of proposed appeal, it is abundantly clear that with a view

to substantiate the allegations of intimidation, the applicant only got herself

examined before the trial Court and stated that she had in her possesison some

recorded conversation which would demonstrate that the respondent-accused

had been threatening her to dispose of his property. She sought time to produce

the conversation so recorded, but neither the said conversation was produced

before the trial Court as a matter of proof, nor she appeared thereafter till the

matter was taken up for final consideration by the trial Court.

4 In view of the nature of evidence that has come on record and also

looking to the nature of allegation made, it would not be in the interest of

justice to grant special leave to file appeal. Accordingly, this application

seeking leave to file appeal is dismissed. Consequently, criminal acquittal

appeal shall also stand dismissed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 03.08.2021 Sanjeev

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No