Dismissed

Munni Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022A482/28278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court examined the rejection of a delay condonation application for a criminal appeal filed eight years later. The court relied on the lower appellate court's observation that the petitioners failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed as no interference is required.

Munni Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28278 of 2022 Applicant :- Munni Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶5

Against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2014 by which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, an appeal was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Amroha which has numbered as 215/2021 "Munni Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others", P.S. Adampur, District Amroha.

¶6

The appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 8 years. Perusal of the application dated 08.11.2021 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that the delay has not been appropriately explained. Law in this regard is settled that each and every days delay has to be explained. Instead of explaining the delay adequately, an attempt has been made to give lame explanation by casually explaining the delay which is not enough and hence, the Appellate Court vide order dated 21.05.2022 has rejected the delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The relevant part of the order dated 21.05.2022 is extracted below:-

¶7

धधरध-5 पररससमधअधधननयमककपधररनधपतककननसतधरणककसमबनधमममधननसयउचचतमनयधयधलयदधरध नवनभननयधनयकदषधनततममयहधसदधदतपनतपधनदतनकयकगयकहहनकनवलमबकककमधकरनकककधलएउदधर दनषककणअपनधयधजधनधचधनहएतरधतकनसकककधरणतसकबचनधचधनहए, परनततयहभससपषहहनक पधररगणककनवलमबकधसमतनचतकधरणदरधरनधहकगध।

¶8

पसत मधमलकममपकगतननणरयवदणडधदकरनदनधदक 20.01.2014 ककपधररतनकयधगयधरध, धजसककनवरद यहअपसलनवलमबमधफकककपधररनधपतककसधरपधररगण/ अनभयतकगणककओरसकलगभगआठवररबधद पसत ककगयसहह।नवलमबकधमतखयकधरणयहदरधरयधगयधहहनकउनहमनयधयधलयककरसडरदधरधबतधनदयध गयधरधनकवकदकरमतकहकगयकहहऔरउनहमघरभकजनदयधगयध।उनहमनतकअनभरकधममधलयधगयधऔरनहस नकससपतधवलसयधपकपरपरउनककहसतधकरकरधयकगयक।इससमबनधममअवरनयधयधलयककपतधवलसकक अवलककनसकसपषहकतधहहनकनदनधदक 20.01.2014 ककआदकरपतककहधनरयकपरपधररगण / अनभयतकगणकक हसतधकरअदनकतहह।इसकधअररहहनकवकननणरयककनतधरककनयधयधलयममउपससरतरक।इसककपपवरकक आदकरपतनदनधदनकत 13.01.2014 सकसपषहहनकउसनदनभसकतछअनभयतकगणउपससरतहहयकरकऔरदकनत पकतककनवदधनअधधवकधगणककबहससतनसगयसरस।पशनगतननणरयएवददणडधदकरममअनभयतकगण / पधररगणककदकरधसदकरककउनहमअनभरकधममलकनकतरधदणडककनबनदतपरसतननकककउपरधनतदणडधदकर पधररतकरनककधउलकखहह।नदनधदक 20.01.2014 ककआदकरपतककअनतसधरअनभयतकगणककउसनदन नयधयधलयममउपससरतहकनकपरआदकरपतककहधनरयकपरहसतधकरकरधयकगयकहह।

¶9

इसककअनतररकपधररगण/ अनभयतकगणदधरधलगभगआठवररदतकउपरककननणरयवदणडधदकरकक जधनकधरसनकरनधऔरइसहकततनकलसवधलककधलए 'आवकदननकरनधभसअसवधभधनवकहह।यदनप पशनगतननणरयवदणडधदकरपरअनभयतकगण, ककहसतधकरअदनकतनहहहह, परनततउसनदनककआदकरपतपर

¶10

अनभयतकगणककहसतधकरअदनकतहह।अततयहमधनधजधयकगधनकपधररगण / अनभयतकगणककउपससरनतमम उपरककननणरयवदणडधदकरपधररतहहआरध।इसपकधरजबपधररगण/ अनभयतकगणककउपससरनतमम उपरककननणरयवदणडधदकरपधररतहहआहहतबलगभगआठवररदतकइसननणरयवदणडधदकरककनवरद अपसलपसत नकरनककधजककधरणदरधरयधगयधहहवहउनचतवपयधरपपतसतनहहहकतधहह।उपरकक नववकचनधककआधधरपरमकरकमतममपधररगण / अनभयतकगणदधरधअपसलककपसत करनकममहहयकनवलमबकक कमधकरनकककधलएपसत पधररनधपतअदतगरतधधरध 5 पररससमधअधधननयमननरसतनकयकजधनकयकगयहह।

¶11

आदकर

¶12

फफजदधरसपककणरवधदसदखयध-215/2021, अदतगरतधधरध 5 पररससमधअधधननयमउपरककधनतसधरननरसत नकयधजधतधहह।

¶13

Perusal of the order dated 21.05.2022 shows that the learned Sessions Judge has noticed the fact that the judgment and order dated 20.01.2014 was passed by the learned lower court in presence of the present petitioners and the signatures of the petitioners are there on the order sheet, therefore not filing appeal for a period of eight years and the reasons assigned for such delay are not adequate, hence, I am of the opinion that the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act moved by the petitioners has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed as no interference is required.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 RC

¶16

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.10.21 09:27:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munni Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Kaushlendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Neeraj Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surya Pratap @ Golu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Verma @ Rahul @ Ankur Vs State of U.P. and Another