Rajendra Ram @ Rajendra Kumar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2828 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Revision No. 216 of 2023
        Rajendra Ram @ Rajendra Kumar Sao      .... ...Petitioner
                               Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                 .... ...Opp. Party
                             --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.

--------

05/ 11.08.2023

I.A.No. 5762 of 2023

The instant Interlocutory Application is on behalf of

the petitioner with the prayer to condone the delay of 1724

days.

2. The reason for the same is disclosed that the

petitioner had no knowledge of conviction in the appeal. The

court-below has not informed him in regard to his conviction in

the present case. There is no laches on his part. If the impugned

order is allowed to stand it would cause irreparable loss to the

petitioner.

3. The learned Spl. P.P. opposed this I.A. on the ground

that the petitioner had been appearing before the Appellate

Court. He had thorough knowledge in regard to pendency of the

appeal and had also the knowledge in regard to the Judgment

passed by the Appellate Court by which the conviction passed

by the trial court was affirmed.

4. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the

trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under

Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. and the convict i.e. petitioner herein

was taken in judicial custody on 24.01.2012 and the sentence

of two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was inflicted. This order

passed by the trial court was assailed by preferring Cr. Appeal

No. 56 of 2012. This appeal was decided by the Additional

Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag vide Judgment dated

03.03.2016. From the very operating portion of this Judgment,

it is evident that the learned Appellate Court held that there

was no need to intervene in the impugned Judgment passed by

the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and

sentenced. The appeal was dismissed and the order passed by

the trial court was affirmed. No such order was passed by the

trial court directing the appellant/convict to surrender before

the trial court and the trial court was also not directed to issue

the warrant of the appellant to serve out the sentence and this

Cr. Revision was preferred on behalf of the petitioner on

17.02.2023 after 7 years.

5. From the very perusal of this I.A., it is also found that

the petitioner has nowhere mentioned how and from whom

and on which date he came to know that the appeal has

been dismissed, whereby the order of conviction passed by

the court-below was affirmed. As such the reason of the

delay shown is not found sufficient. The complete inaction

and laches is on the part of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, I.A.No.5762 of 2023 is dismissed.

7. Consequently, I.A. No. 6905 of 2023 and Cr. Revision

are also dismissed.

(Subhash Chand, J.) P.K.S.