Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6174 MP

                          1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   CRR No.1073/2022
              (RAKESH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 26/04/2022

      Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned counsel for the State.

      This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

has been filed against the order dated 11/03/2022 passed by Fourth

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.22/2022

thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/applicant as

barred by limitation and as a consequence thereof affirmed the order

dated 28/06/2011 passed by CJM, Bhind in Criminal Case

No.1899/2006, by which the applicant was convicted under Section

25(1-B)(a) of the arms Act.

      The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision in short

are that, the applicant was convicted by the Trial Court by judgment

and sentence dated 28/06/2011 and his sentence was suspended in

order to facilitate him to obtain stay order/bail order from the

appellate Court. It appears that thereafter, the appellant/ applicant did

not even file an appeal. Ultimately, warrant of arrest was issued and

in execution of warrant of arrest, the applicant was arrested on

09/02/2022

. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal

under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. on 03/02/2022 alongwith the application

for condonation of delay. The appellate Court by the impugned order

dated 11/03/2022 has dismissed the application filed under Section 5

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.1073/2022 (RAKESH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

of Limitation Act and as a consequence thereof, criminal appeal has

also been dismissed as barred by limitation.

Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is

submitted by the counsel for the appellant/applicant that while

deciding the application for condonation of delay, the appellate Court

should have adopted a lenient view in the matter specifically when an

accused is in jail.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant had filed an application under Section 5 of

Limitation Act before the appellate Court, which reads as under:-

^^U;k;ky; ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; fHk.M e-iz-

izdj.k dzekad @2022 v-Qkst

jkds'k iq= Hkojflag fuoklh jSiqjk Fkkuk ojksgh& vfHk;qDr

ouke

e0 iz0 'kklu iqfyl ojksgh &fjLiks -

vkosnu i= vUrjxZr /kkjk 5 vof/k fo/kku &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Jheku th] vkosnu i= fuEukafdr lknj izLrqr gS fd& 1& ;gfd] ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k esa fnukad 28 twu 2011 dks fu.kZ;@n.MkKk ikfjr djrs gq, vkosnd dks nks"k flf} ikrs gq;s ltk ,oa vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSa vkonsd ekuuh; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k tekur ij vktkn gksdj iSjoh dh gSa tekur dk

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.1073/2022 (RAKESH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

dksbZ nq:i;ksx ugha fd;k FkkA vkonsd vfHk;qDr us vFkZn.M dh jkf'k tek djk nh FkhA rFkk tekur rLnhd dh x;h FkhA rRle; [email protected] vkjksih dks ;g crk;k x;k Fkk mldk izdj.k dk fujkdj.k gks pqdk gSa vc mldks U;k;ky; esa ugh vkuk gSaA bl dkj.k vihykV v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o n.MkKk ds fo:} vihy is'k ugha dj ldk FkkA mls iqfyl }kjk fxj- dj fy;k x;k rc mls ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fo:} vihy ugha dj ikus ds okjs esa tkudkjh gks ldh gSA rc ;g vihy is'k dh gSA

2& ;gfd] vihykV ls mDr =qfV lgou gq;h gSa mlus tkucw> dj vihy is'k u djus dh xyrh ugha dh gSaA mldh xyrh lnHkkouk ij vk/kkfjr gksdj {kek ;ksX; gSaA ;fn foyEc {kek ugh fd;k x;k rks vihykaV dks fujks/k esa gh jgdj ltk Hkqxrku gksxk ftlls og U;k; ls oafpr gks tkosxkA

3& ;gfd] vU; fuosnu oDr ogl le{k esa fuosnu fd;s tkosaxsA tks fd ogl dk vax gksxsA

vr%,o vkosnu is'k dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuonsu gSa fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh n.MkKk ds fo:} vihy is'k djus eas gq;s foyEc dks {kek fd;k tkdj vihy vUnj vof/k ekU; o Lohdkj djus dh d`ik dh tkosA

fnukad 2&3&2022 izkFkhZ]

jkds'k iq= Jh Hkaojflag mez 33 lky fuoklh jSiqjk Fkkuk ojksgh ftyk fHk.M e0iz0 vfHk;[email protected] vkosndx.k**

From the plain reading of this application, it is clear that the

applicant had taken a specific stand then after he was convicted by

the Trial Court and he had submitted his bail bonds, then he was

informed that since, the trial has been concluded, therefore, he is not

required to come to the Court and thus, under a false impression, he

did not file an appeal. The Trial Court did not consider it to be a

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.1073/2022 (RAKESH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 11 long years.

Accordingly, the applicant was dismissed.

Although, in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation

Act, it was not mentioned that the appellant/applicant was advised

not to even file an appeal, but since on 11/04/2022, it was argued on

the said lines, therefore, the counsel for the applicant was directed to

disclose the name of the counsel who had misled him by suggesting

that as fine amount has been deposited, therefore, he is neither

required to file an appeal nor he is required to obtain any stay

order/bail order and accordingly, two weeks time was granted to

disclose the name of the person who had misled the applicant.

Today, it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that

the name of the said person has not been communicated to him.

Be that whatever it may be.

It is a case where the applicant absconded after he was

convicted by the Trial Court and he remained absconding for 11 long

years and only in the month of February, 2022, he could be arrested

and thereafter, he preferred a criminal appeal. The cause disclosed by

the applicant in his application under Section 5 of Limitation Act,

which is filed before the appellate Court cannot be said to be a

sufficient cause because it is well established principle of law that

although, the mistake of fact is pardonable but the mistake of law is

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.1073/2022 (RAKESH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

not pardonable (Ignorantia facti doth excusat ignorantia juris non-

excusat).

Furthermore, the applicant has not disclosed the name of the

person who had misled him. Thus, it is clear that the ground raised by

the applicant that he was misled that since, he has already furnished

bail, therefore, he is not required to come to the Court is nothing but

an after thought having no factual foundation. It is true that while

considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court below

has to adopt a lenient view but the conduct of the applicant in

remaining absconding for 11 long years for no good reason is also to

be considered and it has been rightly considered by the appellate

Court.

Under these circumstances, this Court does not found any

perversity or jurisdictional error in order dated 11/03/2022 passed by

Fourth Additional Session Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal

No.22/2022.

Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                              (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/-                                                              Judge


                     PRINCEE BARAIYA
                     2022.04.26
                     19:45:50 +05'30'