The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, set aside an order dismissing an appeal due to a 18-day delay, condooned said delay, and remitted the appeal for disposal within a specific timeframe.
The order was set aside, the 18-day delay was condoned, and the appeal was remitted to be disposed of by October 31, 2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRL.RP. NO. 105/2015
BETWEEN
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP/SPP )
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF Cr.P.C. BY THE ADVOATE FOR
2
THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, ON IA NO.1 IN CRL. A. NO.82/2014 DATED 12.11.2014 AND CONSEUENTIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL PASSED ON 18.11.2014 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, IN CC NO. 181/2008 DATED 13.02.2014 AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 12.11.2014, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Criminal Appeal No.82/2014, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioners.
2.1 The learned Magistrate viz., Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, on receipt of charge sheet in Crime No. 42/2008 of Hunsur Town Police Station, after securing the presence of the accused (revision petitioners) and on framing of the necessary charge in
3
CC No.181/2008, held the trial and convicted the accused (revision petitioners) for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC by order dated 13.02.2014. Being aggrieved by the said conviction order, the accused filed an appeal before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Court at Mysuru, which is made over to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Appeal No.82/2014. However, as there was delay of 18 days in filing the said appeal, the accused filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, with necessary affidavit. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the parties, has rejected the application filed by the accused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay of 18 days vide order dated 12.11.2014, even after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananthanag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others. It is that order, which is under challenge in this petition.
4
5
approached an advocate and in that process, there was a delay of 18 days. However, the learned Sessions Judge though referred to the judgment in Mst. Katiji’s case cited supra, refused to condone the delay. Apart from the above decision, in catena of judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court would also rule that, while condoning the delay, the court should not adopt too pedantic approach and the Court must be liberal. It is needless to emphasize that, when the accused (revision petitioners) were convicted and they were sent to jail, they got a right to file Jail Appeal. But in the case on hand, the accused (revision petitioners) have preferred to file appeal through a private Advocate. Admittedly, the accused (revision petitioners) were holding the certified copy of the judgment with them, which was supplied to them at the time of passing the conviction order and their parents met them in jail and later on they have collected the certified copies of the judgment from them and thereafter approached an advocate to file appeal. Under such circumstances, the delay of 18 days which has occurred
6
in filing the appeal, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a huge delay so as to disentitle the accused of his right of appeal. Suffice to say that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay by denying the substantive right granted by the Statute to the accused, cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, it is a fit case where interference of this Court is necessary by exercising powers vested in it. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
7
Sd/JUDGE
KGR*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 18 days in filing an appeal by the accused warrants denial of the substantive right to appeal.
Whether the High Court should interfere to condone the delay and remit the appeal for disposal.
Whether the First Appellate Court can be directed to dispose of the appeal by a specified deadline.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananthanag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and othersExplained¶31
(1987) 2 SCC 107 Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananthanag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Inna @ Innayath @ Inayathulla
Sri. Mohid
State of Karnataka
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
