STATE Vs. TEKAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of 23 criminal appeal arising out of the conviction of accused persons under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act are being disposed of on the short ground that these appeals are either barred by time aud/or are not maintainable. For that purpose, there is no need for this Court to go into the facts of each case.

(2.) Article 115 of the Limitation Act provides the period of 60 day's for filing an appeal to the High Court, from a sentence other than the sentence of death, or any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal. The limitation starts running on the date of sentence/ order of the trial court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that out of 23 appeals before this Court, 19 appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation, even if the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned judgements is excluded However, his submission is that the office of the Delhi Administration remained under a bonafide mistake that the limitation of 90 days would beapplicable in such like cases. On that score, his submission is that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned and the same beheard and decided on merits'. This is hardly an excuse for claiming condonation; firstly because the State cannot be considered to be unaware of this provision, and secondly, they have not filed applications explaining each day's delay in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation. Under. similar circumstances, in case reported as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shyama Nand I.L.R. (1976) H.P. 89,(1) the delay was not condoned. While rejecting the appeals, it was observed as under:-