Ravi Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 496 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1937-2020 Ravi Rajak Vs. State of MP

Through video conferencing

Gwalior, Dated :. 11.01.2022

Shri Nitin Agrawal, Counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Kalpana Parmar, Counsel for the State.

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been

filed against the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by 7th Additional

Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.94/2020, by which

the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of

delay.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

appellant was charged for offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise

Act in Criminal Case No.21/2006 and by judgment dated 31.08.2010,

the JMFC, Shivpuri convicted the appellant for the offene under

Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo the

jail sentence of one year and fine of Rs.26,000/- with default

imprisonment. The said judgment was passed on 31.08.2010.

However, as the applicant was medically ill, therefore, he could not

file the appeal, but the appeal was filed after 10 years and 9 days

along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is

submitted that it is well established principle of law that the

Appellate Court must consider the application for condonation of

delay in a sympathetic manner and should not have taken a very

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1937-2020 Ravi Rajak Vs. State of MP

technical view.

Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that not only, the applicant did not file

any document in support of his medical ailment, but it appears that

after the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court, the applicant

absconded and only after he was arrested, he filed an appeal along

with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From the impugned order dated 04.08.2020 passed by 7th

Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, it is clear that the counsel for

the applicant was heard on the question of sentence by the Trial

Court. However, it appears that he did not surrender after he was

convicted. It appears that the perpetual warrant of arrest was issued

against the applicant and, accordingly, in execution of said warrant,

the applicant was arrested. Only after his arrest, the applicant filed an

appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. Except by

mentioning that the applicant was seriously ill and he was under

treatment, no document was filed to show that the applicant was

either suffering from any physical ailment or he was undergoing any

treatment. Thus, it is clear that the applicant has failed to produce any

convincing evidence before the Appellate Court to substantiate his

submission of medical illness. Furthermore, the applicant has also not

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1937-2020 Ravi Rajak Vs. State of MP

filed any document before this Court to show that he was suffering

from any medical illness or he was under any treatment. It appears

that the applicant did not surrender after the judgment, accordingly,

perpetual warrant of arrest was issued. Only after the applicant was

arrested, he preferred a criminal appeal. Thus, it is clear that the

applicant had failed to explain the delay of 10 years and 9 days in

filing the criminal appeal.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant has already undergone sentence of 6 months out of the jail

sentence of one year awarded by the Trial Court, therefore, he should

be saddled with the jail imprisonment for the period already

undergone by him.

The appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed on the ground

of delay. Therefore, the only question for consideration before this

Court is as to whether the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court

for rejecting the application for condonation of delay are proper or

not ?

Since the Appellate Court has not considered the merits of the

case, therefore, this Court while exercising its revisional powers

against the order by which the appeal filed by the appellant was

dismissed as barred by limitation, cannot look into the merits of the

case for considering sufficiency of sentence. Further, the Supreme

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1937-2020 Ravi Rajak Vs. State of MP

Court in the case of Nagpal Traders Vs. Davinder Singh reported in

(2017) 11 SCC 431, has held that question of sentence cannot be

dealt with unless and until the merits of the case are considered.

Furthermore, minimum sentence for offence under Section 34(2) of

M.P. Excise Act is one year, therefore, under no circumstance,

sentence less than one year can be awarded.

Under these circumstances, even after considering the

submissions with most lenient approach, this Court is unable to

satisfy itself to give a finding that any sufficient reason was given by

the applicant. Since the applicant could not point out any illegality in

the order passed by the Appellate Court, no case is made out

warranting interference in the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by 7th

Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.

Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

The applicant is on bail as he was granted bail by order dated

22.09.2020. His bail bonds are cancelled. The applicant is directed to

immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing

remaining jail sentence.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.01.12 16:56:17 +05'30'