AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.
Heard Mr. A.M. Chandekar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Manju Ghatode, learned counsel for non-applicant nos.1 to 4.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Misc. Criminal Application No.8/2025, whereby the application filed for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Appeal No.3/2021 came to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted by judgment dated 07-01-2019 passed in Regular Criminal Case No.182/2002. Against the said judgment of acquittal, the non-applicant no.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.31/2019. Notice of the said appeal was received by the applicant on 30.10.2019. Upon receipt of the said notice, the applicant made inquiries regarding the status of the case filed by the non-applicant no.1 against the applicant. It was then informed that the said trial, being Regular Criminal Case No.182/2002, had also been decided on 07.01.2019, resulting in the acquittal of the non-applicants herein. The applicant applied for a certified copy of the judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.182/2002 on 02.11.2019 and received the certified copy on 13.12.2019. Thereafter, an Advocate was engaged by the applicant for drafting and filing an appeal for challenging the said judgment of acquittal. However, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Learned Counsel further submits that the period of limitation for filing appeals stood extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020. Thus, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and was ultimately filed on 08-03-2021. It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, the same ought to have been condoned. However, the learned Appellate Court, without taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the acquittal of all the non-applicants herein. Learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chandekar, upon instructions from the applicant, further submits that the applicant is ready and willing to pay the necessary costs for filing the appeal belatedly. It is submitted that the applicant's right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal ought not to be defeated merely on account of the delay in filing such appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that the application may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2026, whereby the application for condonation of delay has been rejected.
As against this, Ms. Ghatode, learned Counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 to 4, opposes the application on the ground that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the non-applicants came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 07.01.2019, whereas the identical counter-case, being Regular Criminal Case No.153/2002, in which the applicant was an accused, had also resulted in his acquittal. Therefore, the applicant cannot contend that he was unaware of the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the non-applicants on 07.01.2019. It is further submitted that the explanation furnished by the applicant that he was unaware of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the non-applicants is merely an excuse and does not constitute a sufficient explanation for the delay. The delay is inordinate and unexplained and has, therefore, been rightly refused to be condoned by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Counsel submits that the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
I have gone through the order dated 04.03.2026 as well as the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.257/2023. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Revision No.257/2023, challenging the order dated 05.09.2023, whereby the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected on the objection raised by the Superintendent, and the appeal came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The said revision came to be allowed by this Court, observing that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this Court granted liberty to the present applicant to file a fresh application for condonation of delay along with the appeal sought to be preferred by him. In pursuance of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.257/2023, the applicant again approached the learned Appellate Court and filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The applicant has set out detailed reasons explaining the delay. According to the applicant, sufficient explanation has been furnished for the delay caused in filing the appeal, as the applicant was not aware of the judgment dated 07.01.2019, which is sought to be challenged in the appeal. The record indicates that Regular Criminal Case No.153/2002, in which the applicant was an accused, came to be decided on 21.06.2019 and not on 07.01.2019. Thus, the reasons furnished by the applicant appear to be plausible and probable.
Be that as it may, since the applicant has voluntarily undertaken to pay costs of the amount of Rs.28,000/- directly to non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and also taking into consideration the observations of this Court in earlier Criminal Revision Application No.257/2023, I am inclined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to correct the error committed by the Courts below.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi Vs. Jaiprakash Tulsiram Gupta and Another in Criminal Application No.380/2019, decided on 16-07-2020, was pleased to observe in paragraph nos.24, 25 and 25 as under :-
“24.Contextually, it would be apt and apposite to touch Section 365 of the Code. It says that in cases tried by the Court of Sessions or Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court or such Magistrate, as case may be, shall forward a copy of its or his finding and sentence (if any) to the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the trial was held.
25.Notably, Section 365 is silent about any other Magistrate. A victim who is entitled to file an appeal against acquittal could be a victim in a case tried by any other Magistrate. Sub-Section 5 of Section 363 of the Code provides for supplying of copy of the judgment or order or any deposition or other part of the record to any person affected by the judgment or order passed by a Criminal Court on his application, the proviso therein also provides issuance of copy free of cost, if the Court thinks it fit for special reasons.
26.Surprisingly, there is no provision in the Code to give notice to the victim about the date of judgment.”
The Patna High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Mandal v The State of Bihar, reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 1046 was pleased to observe as under :
"18....Hence, prescribing the same limitation for preferring appeal by a victim, as applicable in the case of an appeal by the State Government or the Central Government or a complainant, will amount to putting fetters and circumscribing the right of a victim, not intended and prescribed by the Legislature. Judicial discipline requires from courts to refrain from supplying any casus omissus in the legislation, for it is duty of the court to interpret, and not to legislate... No limitation of time has been provided by the Legislature for exercise of such a right of appeal by the "victim" in terms of the said Proviso. Hence, in the fact and circumstances of each case, the Court has to determine as to whether the appeal was entertainable, or not, on the ground of absence of bona fide explanation for delay by the appellant..."
A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. and others, reported in 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1005 (P&H), was pleased to hold that there is no provision of limitation for filing an appeal by the victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of filing such an appeal, the period shall be a reasonable one. Thus, taking into consideration the law laid done by various High Courts as stated herein above, I am inclined to exercise the discretion to condone the delay in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to correct the error committed by the learned Lower Court, which failed to take into consideration the above pronouncement of law on the point of delay caused in filing an appeal by a victim under Section 372 of the Code. Hence, the following order :r:
ORDER
Revision Application is allowed.
The impugned order dated 04.03.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.28,000/- directly to non-applicant Nos.1 to 4.
Upon payment of the aforesaid amount and placing the receipt thereof on record by the non-applicants, the matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Court. The appeal filed by the applicant is restored to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora.
The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, on 15.09.2026.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora shall decide the appeal against acquittal filed by the applicant on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.