Allowed¶14

Nishant Guleria v. Ms Sidharth Baskers and foodies and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CRMPM/2060/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 23 days' delay; criminal appeal against acquittal; Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act); illness of counsel; treatment at PGI Chandigarh; treatment records of Tenzin Hospital, Navjeevan Hospital and PGI Chandigarh; uncontroverted affidavit; sufficient cause; revision filed instead of appeal; 90 days limitation; Sundernagar District Mandi; Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2060 of 2025; connected leave to appeal Cr.MP(M) No. 3019 of 2023; reserved 10.03.2026; decided 07.04.2026; Judge Rakesh Kainthla.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 23 days in filing the criminal appeal against the acquittal judgment condoned; condonation application allowed and disposed of. The application for leave to appeal (Cr.MP(M) No. 3019 of 2023) was directed to be listed for consideration after 3 weeks. ¶14

Nishant Guleria Vs Ms Sidharth Baskers and foodies… — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 23 days in filing the criminal appeal against the acquittal judgment should be condoned on account of the illness of the applicant's counsel.

¶5

Court's answer

There is no reason to disbelieve the averments in the application, as the respondent filed no affidavit in denial; the affidavit of counsel and the treatment records of Tenzin Hospital, Navjeevan Hospital and PGI Chandigarh corroborate that the learned counsel remained ill, and since illness is a circumstance beyond the control of any person, the applicant had a sufficient reason for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In view of the sufficient cause shown, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay – 23 days' delay in filing criminal appeal against judgment dated 01/05/2023 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, in criminal Case No. 347-1/2017 acquitting the respondent/accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) – applicant had inadvertently filed a revision petition instead of the appeal within the prescribed limitation of 90 days and later sought conversion – delay attributed to illness of the applicant's counsel, who was under treatment at PGI Chandigarh – respondent filed no reply or denying affidavit despite repeated opportunities – affidavit of counsel and treatment records of Tenzin Hospital, Navjeevan Hospital and PGI Chandigarh corroborated the illness – illness held to be a circumstance beyond the control of any person, constituting sufficient reason for the delay – application allowed and delay condoned – application for leave to appeal (Cr.MP(M) No. 3019 of 2023) listed for consideration after 3 weeks.

¶1

Nishant Gulreia versus M/S Sidarth Bakers and Foodies and Others

¶2

Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2060 of 2025 Reserved on 10.03.2026

¶3

07.04.2026 Present: Ms. Kiran Kanwar, Advocate for the applicant.

¶4

Mr Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶5

The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant has filed a petition against the judgment dated 01/05/2023 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Sundernagar District Mandi in criminal Case No. 347-1/2015, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It has been asserted that the applicant had inadvertently filed a revision petition instead of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, however, the applicant realised his mistake, and filed an application for converting the revision into an appeal. The order was passed on 01/05/2023, an application for a certified copy of the judgment was filed on the same day, and the appeal was filed on 15/09/2023. There was a delay of 23 days’ in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant remained under treatment at PGI Chandigarh

¶6

and could not file the appeal within time due to her illness. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶7

No reply to the application was filed despite repeated opportunities.

¶8

I have heard Ms Kiran Kanwar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mr Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶9

Ms Kiran Kanwar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted that the applicant had mistakenly filed a revision against the order passed by learned Trial Court. When he realised his mistake, he filed an application for converting the revision into an appeal. The period of limitation for filing the appeal had expired. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner was under treatment at PGI Chandigarh, and the appeal could not be filed within time. Therefore, she prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶10

5. Mr Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the revision filed against an order acquitting the accused was not maintainable. The applicant has no reasonable cause for

¶11

condonation of delay; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶12

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶13

The applicant has filed an affidavit of Ms Kiran Kanwar, Advocate, in support of the application. The respondent has not filed any affidavit denying the averments made in the application. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the application. The applicant has also filed the photocopies of the treatment records issued by Tenzin Hospital, Navjeevan Hospital and PGI Chandigarh. These documents corroborate the applicant's version that the learned counsel remained ill. Since illness is a circumstance beyond the control of any person; therefore, the applicant had a sufficient reason for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.

¶14

In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of.

¶15

Cr.MP(M) No. 3019 of 2023

¶16

List the application for seeking leave to appeal

¶17

for consideration after 3 weeks.

¶18

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶19

7^th April, 2026

¶20

(Nikita)

Nishant Guleria v. Ms Sidharth Baskers and foodies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Guleria v. Ms Sidharth Baskers and foodies and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kaushal Vs State of Hp

Binta Vs State of Hp

Suraj Vs State of Hp

Jeet Ram Vs Gopal alias Nilu alias Anil

Hima Devi Deleted, Prabh Dayal and Ors. Vs Kala Devi Deceased through Lrs Jeet Ram and Ors.

Sukha Vs State of Hp