The court declined to entertain an application for restoration of a dismissed Criminal Leave to Appeal due to significant delay and lack of engagement with original counsel, while noting pending status allows raising contentions during trial proceedings.
The application for restoration of the CRLMA is disposed of without entertaining it.
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.
CRLMA No.227 of 2018
03. 17.12.2018 The petitioner had filed the CRLMC No. 348 of 2011 impeaching an order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in S.C. No. 46/45 of 1996-99.
By the said order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that the two lines appearing at para-61 of deposition of P.W. 4 recorded on 20.07.2010 during his cross-examination would be over looked while appreciating the evidence as those are extraneous being not covered by the questionnaire given in the petition. The above noted CRLMC has been dismissed by order dated 21.07.2014 based on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of repeated communication and reminder, he did not receive any response.
On 24.08.2018, the present application has been filed for recall of the said order and restoration of the CRLMC for its disposal on merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the petitioner had received any information and communication from the learned counsel who was engaged therein and therefore, said submission on their behalf based on which the CRLMC has been dismissed, was not true and correct.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the present move for restoration of the CRLMC for having been made after lapse of more than four years. According to him, after
such delay lapse of time, the petition should not be entertained.
Admittedly, the learned counsel who has now filed this application was not the counsel for the petitioner in that CRLMC. The order of dismissal having been passed on 21.7.2014; the interim order of stay of further proceeding of the Sessions Case has been vacated on that day and in the meantime more than four years has passed by.
Considering the submission and in view of the aforesaid, at this stage, I am not inclined to entertain this application for restoration of the CRLMC.
While parting, it is, however, observed that since the trial of the case has not yet been concluded as is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners; it is open for the petitioners to place all the contentions in the matter before the learned court in seisin of the trial during the argument for their consideration in accordance with law while passing the final judgment.
Accordingly, the CRLMA is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
Aks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Leave to Appeal filed with delay should be restored for disposal on merits after the period of unavailability of counsel.
Whether the trial case is still pending allowing contentions to be placed before the trial court without restoration.
Whether the application for restoration of the CRLMA should be entertained despite passage of four years.
petitioner
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
