SANKAR CHINNA Vs. TAPAN KRISHNA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing the instant Revisional Application the petitioner seeks to set aside/quash the impugned order being order No. 4 dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2013 dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby also dismissing the said Criminal Appeal preferred by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed on 31st August, 2013 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Hooghly (Sadar) in connection with C.R. Case No. 72 of 2010 convicting the present petitioner and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month more.

(2.) MR . Sabir Ahmed, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2013. Since there was some delay in preferring the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The delay was explained and it was averred in the said petition that owing to illness, the appellant and his father were not in a position to attend Court for preparation of the appeal within time. He further submitted that to substantiate such delay on account of illness the appellant produced a Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor who treated him. But the Learned Sessions Judge did not accept such explanation for the delay only because the Medical Certificate was not corroborated by any medical prescription, and she therefore, rejected the application and passed the impugned order. He submitted yet further that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced for such rejection order which has ultimately resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him the petitioner has been gagged and his substantive right of preferring appeal against the order of conviction and sentence has been denied to him by the impugned order. He submitted yet further that the Learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, should have shown greater indulgence and flexibility in applying the law of limitation since it was a case of conviction and imposition of sentence. Thus he concluded by submitting that the impugned order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Ghafoor & Another V. State of Bihar reported in : (2012)1 C Cr.LR (SC) 57 in support of his submission.

(3.) HAVING regard to the rival submission and contention advanced by the Learned Advocates in the light of the decision placed, I would like to say that in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Court's approach should be pragmatic. I would like to mention further that the Revisional power of the High Court, is wide enough and must be exercised to further the ends of justice. In cases of serious miscarriage of justice, it possesses unfettered power to interfere.