SONU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 127 of 2009 (Sonu v. State) whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and appeal filed by the revisionist under Section 52 of the Act was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in crime No. 361 of 2009 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra, the revisionist Sonu is an accused. He was declared a juvenile in conflict with law. An application for bail was moved on behalf of the revisionist, which was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra vide order dated 12.8.2009. The appeal under Section 52 of the Act was to be filed by 11.9.2009, but was filed on 16.9.2009 alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that since 21.8.2009, the advocates were on strike. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on the ground that despite strike of lawyers, many advocates were appearing in Court and no ground for condonation of delay is made out. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and appeal was dismissed, as barred by limitation.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. It is not necessary to refer the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. I am surprised that an application for condonation of delay of only 5 days on the ground of strike of lawyers can be rejected by a senior Judicial Officer like Sessions Judge, Agra in such a cavalier manner. Normally, the Courts take a lenient and liberal view in the matters regarding condonation of delay. To be hyper technical and punishing a client for the fault of his counsel has never been the job of the Courts. The Courts must act in a manner so that justice may be done to the parties irrespective of the fault of the counsel. Learned Sessions Judge has not refuted the allegation that lawyers were on strike. The application has been rejected only on the ground that despite strike, several lawyers were appearing in Court. We cannot visualize a judicial regime where a judicial officer can punish a litigant for the fault of his counsel in not appearing before the Court. This Court takes very serious view of the matter. This Court is also in the knowledge of the fact that the erring Sessions Judge has since retired. The impugned order is totally perverse and is liable to be set-aside.