ANIL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court (ist Additional Sessions Judge. Mahasamund) dated 28/4/2003 passed in criminal unregistered appeal arising out of the judgment dated 24/3/ 2003 of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Mahasamund, in Criminal Case No. 416/2001 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class convicted the accused/applicant for the commission of the offences under Sections 294 & 332 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 294 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 332 of the IPC. Against the judgment dated 24/3/2003 of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Mahasamund the accused/applicant preferred an appeal before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Mahasamund and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to codone the delay.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as mentioned in para 7 of the memo of appeal the appeal was filed well within time. She further submits that at the time of hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out two days delay in filing the appeal but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not allowed the counsel for the applicant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal on technical ground. When all of a sudden for the first time, at the time of hearing of the appeal the learned appellate Court noticed that the appeal was time barred then the learned appellate Court ought to have allowed the applicant to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.