NAZRUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision arising out of the conviction under Sec. read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The merits of the case need not be discussed at all here because this revision has come to this Court as a result of the appeal having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground of limitation and not on the ground of merits.

(2.) The facts of the case as far as limitation is concerned are that the petitioners were convicted on 23.8.1976 per the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. An appeal was filed on 31st Aug. 1976; along with this appeal the copy of the judgment supplied by the trial court had been filed but it was not a certified copy. The applicant prayed for dispensing with the certified copy but instead of allowing the dispensation the court directed that the said copy should be filed within the period of limitation. Unfortunately, the petitioners did not file the certified copy within limitation but filed it a few days late. The excuse given for filing it late was that the number of the application and other details were with a clerk who had left the service of the lawyer and hence there had been difficulty in obtaining the certified copy. In any case, the court refused to accept this explanation and held that condonation of delay could not take place under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the petitioners have now moved this Court.

(3.) I find that the Additional Sessions Judge has acted without giving due regard to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if it is assumed that the copy was filed late, this was certainly a case for hearing the appeal on merits especially as the correct copy of the judgment supplied by the court was originally filed along with the appeal.