Dismissed

Shakti Singh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018CRLLA/195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge criminal leave to appeal order dismisses an application to condone a 108-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court held the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, rejecting the claim that he was unaware of the trial's conclusion until recently.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed; leave to appeal dismissed.

Shakti Singh Vs State and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 195/2018

¶3

Shakti Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, By Caste Deora Rajput R/o H- 53, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur District Jodhpur Rajasthan

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

Kundan Singh @ Kedi Singh S/o Shri Hem Singh, By Caste Rajput R/o Indroka P. S. Soorsagar, Jodhpur At Present Paanch Batti, Indra Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Order

¶12

06/10/2018

¶13

The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the appellant with a prayer for condoning the delay of 108 days in filing this criminal leave to appeal.

¶14

It is averred in the application that the appellant came to know about the impugned judgment only on 23.04.2018 when he enquired about the case, thereafter, he applied for certified copies of the relevant documents which were received on 26.04.2018 and now he has filed this leave to appeal after consulting his Advocate without any inordinate delay.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant has never been summoned by the police or the court during the course of investigation and the trial, he was not having

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLLA-195/2018]

¶18

any knowledge about progress the complaint filed by him against the respondent No.2, for which he was put to trial. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that on 23.04.2018 when he enquired about the case then only he came to know that vide judgment dated 07.12.2017, respondent No.2 was acquitted.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and argued that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellant, hence, no case for condoning the delay is made out.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The complaint was filed by the appellant on 18.09.2013 and the police have filed charge-sheet against respondent-Kundan Singh in the year 2014 and trial of the case against has concluded vide impugned judgment.

¶22

It is not believable that since 2014, the appellant was not aware about the pendency of the trial against the respondent No.2. He has also not averred that on 23.04.2018, from whom, he came to know about the impugned judgment.

¶23

This Court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing this leave to appeal, hence, the delay of 108 days is not liable to be condoned.

¶24

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

¶25

Resultantly, this leave to appeal is also dismissed.

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

Taruna

Shakti Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Singh v. State and Anr.

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

Parbat Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ganpat Vs State

M/S Manjuldeep Minerals Vs M/S. Anjani Automobiles

Mukesh Vs State

Pradeep @ Prahlad Vs State

Adrash Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd. Vs State and Anr.