High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 CHH CK 0437

Chandra Shekhar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 28 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Chandel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 152 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 328 words

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

1.

The revision is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, whereby the appeal preferred by

the Applicant against the judgment dated 14.6.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.43 of 2013 has been

dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3.

The Applicant was convicted under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced vide judgment dated 14.6.2013 passed by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.43 of 2013. On 25.10.2017, i.e., after 4 years 4 months and 12 days of the judgment dated

14.6.2013, an appeal was preferred by the Applicant along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Vide the

impugned order dated 30.12.2017, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund on

the ground that the delay has not been properly explained.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that though there was a delay of about 4 years in filing the appeal yet the case of the

Applicant is good on merits. Therefore, he prays that the Applicant be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the appeal be decided on merits.

5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent supports the impugned order.

6.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due circumspection.

7.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, I find that the impugned

order is a reasoned order. The appeal was delayed by more than 4 years and the delay was not properly explained. Therefore, the Appellate Court

rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

8.

Resultantly, the revision is dismissed.