ANANDA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused person has filed this revision against the order dated 5.1.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1998. The said Criminal Appeal had been filed by the present Petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence. Since the appeal was barred by limitation, a petition for condonation of delay was filed. The appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that sufficient cause had not been shown.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, I am inclined to allow this revision. An order of conviction has been passed and substantive sentence has been imposed. It cannot be said that the Petitioner would have derived any particular benefit by knowingly delaying the filing of the appeal. In such matters when the question of liberty of a person is concerned, ordinarily, the Court should take a liberal view of the matter. After going through the impugned order, I am satisfied that the appellate Court has taken a highly technical view of the matter and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the ends of justice, I allow this revision, condone the delay in filing the appeal and direct that the appeal shall be taken up and disposed of on merit in accordance with law.