ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA in opposition.

(2.) THERE is a delay of 275 days when the appeal in question was filed by the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav. As per reason shown in the accompanying affidavit in Delay Condonation Application as cause for delay it has been stated that in the cross version of the case crime no.337A the appellant was convicted against which a criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant, which is listed before this Court as Criminal Appeal No.2464 of 2010. The appellant was convicted and taken into custody in the cross version. Appellant was expecting filing of appeal against acquittal at the instance of his father. But his father died in December 2010. After his release from jail, appellant made inquiry from his counsel about filing of appeal by his father, whereupon it transpired that no appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal. Appellant's father was the first informant in S.T. No.1450 of 2004. Appellant contacted several advocates for filing appeal then it came to his knowledge that it can be filed by the legal heirs of first informant then some money was arranged and the appeal preferred. Appellant is a poor villager and living below the poverty line and he is unable to arrange the expences for filing the present appeal and he anyhow managed to file the appeal.

(3.) AS per submission made in the affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, it has been categorically stated, as in the matter of first information report lodged by Brij Lal Yadav father of the appellant, the matter was tried by court of Sessions and judgment was delivered on 22.4.2010. Appellant was convicted and sentenced in Case Crime no.337A against which criminal appeal is pending. Relevant to mention that the appellant has not mentioned as to on what date he was taken into custody in the aforesaid case crime number after his conviction. In so far as the case in hand is concerned then concerned judgment of acquittal is dated 22.4.2010 and as per averments made it has not been disclosed in application/appeal as to on which date was the appellant sent to jail. As per averments made in the affidavit, the father of the appellant died in December 2010. As described in para no.4 in the affidavit. But no appeal was preferred till December 2010. The appellant himself claims to be a poor villager and submits that he has to manage expences which caused inordinate delay. The above reasons when taken together make it obvious that the appellant was well aware of the judgment of acquittal in S.T. no.1450 of 2004 against respondent nos.2 to 8 still he kept on waiting for appeal being filed by his father, till his father died in December 2010. Appellant has very cleverly not disclosed either in his Delay Condonation Application or in the accompanying affidavit as to when he was released from jail. It appears that the appellant is trying to justify delay without disclosing actual facts for reason best known to him. Consequently, the cause of delay as elaborated in the accompanying affidavit to the Delay Condonation Application is wholly unsatisfactorily and the delay occasioned is on the face of it deliberate and outcome of negligent attitude of appellant himself. We are not particular about explanation of each and every day delay but the court in order to do substantial justice will have to satisfy that the cause shown for condonation of delay is reasonable and beyond control of the appellant, which cause has not been satisfactorily and properly explained.