Pardeep Baghel vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3500 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pardeep Baghel vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M)                                                   -1-




      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112
                                                     CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision: 21.03.2025

Pardeep Baghel                                                     ...Petitioner

                                           Versus

State of Punjab                                                   ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-    Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. CRM-6471 6471-2024

Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 50 days in

filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

the aforesaid delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned.

2. CRR-282 282-2024 (O&M)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment

dated 18.09.2023, 18.09.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of

conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2019, passed by

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana holding him guilty

for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with

Section 511 of IPC and sentencing to the period already undergone by him, had

been dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for th thee purpose of disposal of the

present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

allegations that in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, he had attempted to

commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and had ha

damaged the door and other articles of the house. After registration of FIR,

investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested by the

police on the identification of one Deepak Singh Sood. After completion of

necessary investigation and and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

was presented in the Court against the petitioner.

4. Copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the

petitioner free of cost. On finding a prima facie case for framing charges under

Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 427 of 506 of IPC against

the petitioner, he was chargesheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the

charges and claimed trial.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosec prosecution ution examined 05 witnesses

besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was

closed by order.

6. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and took a plea that he had bee been n falsely

implicated. No defence witness was examined.

7. After appraising the evidence produced on record and considering

the contentions as raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment

of conviction and order on quantum of sentence ddated ated 19.10.2019, held the

accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427,

380 read with 511 of IPC and while observing that the petitioner was not entitled

for probation, sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. F Feeling eeling

aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court,

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

which too had been dismissed on the grounds of limitation, vide impugned

judgment dated 18.09.2023.

8. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the impugned judgments judgment as

passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are

not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. The learned trial Court

had wrongly wrongl held that the petitioner was guilty for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC. In fact the

ingredients for commission of either of these offences had not been made out

even from the allegations in the FIR and also on the basis of the evidence evide

produced on record before the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the

impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the appellate Court, is also not

sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is totally non non-speaking speaking and cryptic.

The appeal of of the petitioner, filed against the judgment of conviction and order

on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, had been dismissed

only on the grounds of delay by observing that he had failed to explain such

delay in filing the appeal. It is argued that the petitioner had properly explained

the delay occurred in filing the appeal with sufficient cause but the same had

been ignored and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on mere

technicalities Hence, it is urged that the petition des technicalities. deserves erves to be accepted, the

impugned judgments judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and

the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges framed against him.

9. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has argued that

there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments as they have been

passed by the Courts below on correct appreciation of facts and evidence

brought on record. Hence, she he has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

10. I have heard learned counsel sel for the parties at considerable length

and have also gone through the material placed on record very carefully.

11. As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018,

the petitioner had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions

Judge, Ludhiana and had damaged the door and other articles of the house. As

evident from the record, he had been held guilty for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC by the learned

trial Court ourt and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him, vide

impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence. Aggrieved

from the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate Court but

the same had been dismissed only only on the ground of delay, without going into the

merits of the appeal. The judgment of conviction was pronounced on 19.10.2019

by the learned trial Court. The copy of the judgment was delivered to the

petitioner on 05.11.2019. However, the appeal was filed on 06.01.2021. The

petitioner had taken a plea that he was serving in BSF and since after

pronouncement of judgment of conviction, his employer had allowed him to

continue in service, he did not file any appeal but subsequently, on 21.04.2020,

he was terminated term from service considering ering the impugned judgment dated dat

19.10.2019 as conviction.

12. It is argued that when the petitioner was terminated from service on

21.04.2020 and only then he came to know that in fact he should file an appeal

againstt his conviction conv but since there was pan India lockdown own due to outbreak of

Covid-19, 19, hence, hence, he could not file the same in time. A perusal of the judgment

passed by the learned appellate Court revels that these facts have been taken into

consideration but it was found found that still the delay of 04 months and 09 days had

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

not been explained by the petitioner and it was only on that ground that the

appeal was dismissed.

13. The primary question that arises before this Court for consideration

is as to whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal of the

petitioner only on the grounds of delay? While discussing the parameters for

exercising discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, the Supreme Court in

Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others vs.

Union of India and another : (2023) 10 SCC 531 considered and discussed its

various pronouncements and looked into the approaches adopted by the Court

and it was ultimately held that as per its judicial pronouncements, the discretion scretion

to condone the delay calls for a liberal and justice justice-oriented oriented approach by the

Courts.

14. Reliance can also be placed upon Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. s. Kotak

Mahindra Co. Ltd. : (2007) 6 SCC 528, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has

been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under

Section 374 of Cr.P.C. as the right of appeal ppeal from a judgment of conviction

affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also a fundamental right.

15. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as Rajendra vs. v

State tate of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2), (2), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that where the appellant furnishes reasons for delay in filing an appeal, the

Court ourt would not dismiss the appeal as time time-barred barred without examining the

reasons for the delay.

16. In view of above cited authorities, it is evident that the right to

appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039108

fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellate Court's

order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the

reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration. The petitioner has

explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal by giving sufficient cause

like unawareness of impact of reduction in sent sentence ence instead of his acquittal and

imposition of nationwide outbreak of Covid Covid-19 19 pandemic. However, the

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on mere technicality that some portion

of delay was not properly explained. The petitioner was serving in BSF and due

to the effect of conviction; he has lost his job, which was the source of his

livelihood. In the opinion of this Court, it is very harsh to deny the right of

appeal to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the ca case se and it is considered

appropriate to remand the case to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal

on its merits. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the present

petition is partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.09.20 18.09.2023, 23, passed

by the learned appellate Court, is set aside. The case is remanded to learned

appellate Court for deciding the appeal of the petitioner on its merits in

accordance with law. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the

said Court on 22.04.2025.

21.03.2025                                               (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                JUDGE

          Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No

          Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                      6 of 6