Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.3240/2022
Arvind Lodhi Vs. State of M.P. and another
Gwalior, Dated:25/04/2022
Shri S.B. Lodhi, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor for the State.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has
been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
27/1/2016
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District
Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.33/2014, by which the
appellant has been convicted under Sections 354-A(1)(i) and 354-B
of IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO, Act and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.100/-,
in default to suffer further RI of 15 days under Section 354(1) (i) of
IPC, rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.200/-, in
default to suffer further RI of thirty days under Section 354-B of IPC
and rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.200/-, in
default to suffer further RI of thirty days under Section 8 of the
POCSO, Act.
IA No.5957/2022 has been filed for condonation of delay.
The Trial Court had passed the judgment on 27/1/2016. It
appears that the Trial Court granted stay under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for enabling the appellant to obtain the stay order from the High
Court. It appears that neither the appellant filed any appeal nor
surrendered after the period of stay order was over. Accordingly, in
execution of perpetual warrant of arrest, he has been taken into
custody on 12/3/2022, which is evident from the jail warrant dated
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.3240/2022
Arvind Lodhi Vs. State of M.P. and another
12/3/2022 issued by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District
Shivpuri. Thus, it is clear that the appellant remained absconding for
a period of six years after he was convicted by the Trial Court. From
order dated 7/3/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore,
District Shivpuri, it is clear that after the appellant was convicted,
stay was granted for a period of one month and the case was fixed for
26/2/2016 for producing the stay / bail order, however, the period of
obtaining stay / bail order was extended by a further period of 20
days and the case was fixed for 17/3/2016 and on the said date also a
further time of 10 days was given, but the appellant even did not file
an appeal. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, the appellant has not given any explanation as to why he did not
file an appeal within the stipulated period. IA No.5957/2022 reads as
under:-
AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF
THE LIMITATION ACT.
The appellant named above respectfully begs to
submit as under:
1- That, That, the instant appeal has been preferred by
the appellant against the judgment and conviction
dated 27.01.2016 by the sentence has been awarded
under section 354(1)(i), 354-B of Indian Penal Code
and under section 8 of the POCSO Act, and punished
for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- in each cases.
Fine amount deposited by the appellant before the
trial court. Appellant is the peaceful citizen of village
Dabiyajagan, Police Station Picchore District
Shivpuri.
2- That, the health of the petitioner could not well as
and when the judgment was passed by the competent
court.
3- That, the petitioner could not file appeal within time,
and the delay for filing the appeal is bonafide.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.3240/2022
Arvind Lodhi Vs. State of M.P. and another
4- That, in the interest of justice it is necessary the
delay for filing appeal deserves to be condone.
It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the
application filed by the appellant may kindly be
allowed and the delay for filing instant appeal may
kindly be condone.
Thus, no cause much less sufficient cause has been pointed out
by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is true
that the appellant is in jail and he has to undergo the rigorous
imprisonment of three years, as awarded by the Trial Court, but for
this heart burning situation, only the appellant is responsible and he
cannot allege any irreparable loss, specifically when he has not
assigned any reason much less sufficient reason to condone the delay.
Even otherwise, it is clear from order dated 7/3/2022 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri that at least on
two occasions the period for obtaining bail / stay order from the High
Court was extended, but the appellant did not care even to file the
Criminal Appeal. Thus, no case is made out for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, IA No.5957/2022 is hereby dismissed.
As a consequence thereof, the Criminal Appeal is also
dismissed as barred by limitation.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.04.26 18:41:01 +05'30'
