PRAGILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore (District Shivpuri) in Case No. 156 of 2001 dated 27th August, 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

(2.) THE trial Court rejected the petition filed under section So of Limitation Act. Short facts of the case are that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pichhore convicted the petitioner under section 447 IPC and fine of Rs. 200/ -. In Criminal Case No. 708/99 vide judgment dated 26.9.2001 against the order of conviction the petitioner filed an appeal along with application under section ~ of the Limitation Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Government Servant and when sentence of fine was awarded by the trial Court his counsel informed that it would not effect his service career, therefore, he could not tile the appeal in time. When he got notice from the department against the aforesaid conviction, the appeal has been filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [AIR 1970 SC 1953], in which it is held that mistake of counsel will not in every case by itself is always a sufficient ground to condone delay. Delay in filing appeal due to earlier filing of appeal in wrong forum on mistaken advice of counsel. Nothing in the case to show that error of counsel was tainted by any mala fide motive. Court would be justified in extending time. Counsel for the non -petitioner supported the order of trial Court and alleged that no sufficient ground has been shown by the petitioner for condoning the delay. In this case there is a delay of 9 months in filing the appeal.