MOHAN RAMCHANDRA PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner approaches this court by way of this writ petition for challenging the order passed by the District Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 4th May, 1991 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner being Regular Appeal No.270 of 1991, as time barred.

(2.) THE short facts in this case is that the petitioner on 4th June, 1987 was arrested under Sec.4 and 5 of Prevention of Gambling Act and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.1 Kolhapur in Cri. Case No.7659 of 1988. Before the Magistrate, the petitioner pleaded guilty. At the time of arrest, he was found to be in possession of Rs.15/-. On pleading guilty, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for fine of Rs.200/- and imprisonment till the rising of the court. The commission of offence is as early as June, 1987. After that it appears that the Petitioner applied for the job and he was appointed as labour in the Government Printing Press, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur as a "Mazdoor". After having worked on that post for two years, it came to the notice of the concerned authority that this conviction entered by the Magistrate against the petitioner found to be a suppression of material facts at the time of making the application and he was sought to be terminated on that count. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner as Complaint No. Complaint (ULP) No. 213 of 1990. By his Judgment dated 2nd February, 1998 the Labour Court Kolhapur set aside the termination of the petitioner.

(3.) I heard counsel for the Petitioner Shri Marwari and Shri Salvi, A.P.P. for State. As noted above, the petitioner would not have filed appeal unless the conviction entered by the court below adversely affect his job prosperity. Therefore, the Petitioner had made sufficient ground to condone the delay in entertaining the appeal. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge that there is no provision for condoning the delay in Cr.P.C. may be technically correct. But every appellate court is entitled to exercise the discretion under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act irrespective of the various types of jurisdiction given to the appellate authority, has the power to condone delay in filing appeal, if the appellant gives sufficient grounds for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore rejection of the appeal by the petitioner on the ground of Limitation is not proper. An opportunity ought to be given by the appellate authority if the appellate authority finds that the delay is satisfactorily explained even if there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay. According to me, the grounds stated by the petitioner for filing the appeal belatedly is adequate ground and the appellate authority ought to have heard the appeal on merits condoning the delay. Accordingly I set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and direct that appeal filed by the petitioner be disposed of on the merit.