VIPIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vipin Sharma-convict has filed this criminal revision against the orders dated 11.01.2017 and 16.01.2019 passed by appellate court, whereby, firstly his application for condonation of two days delay in filing the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2016 passed by the trial court was permitted to be withdrawn, and later the appeal bearing No.CRM/13/2017 was also dismissed qua the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner arose from FIR No.28 dated 28.05.2010, under Sections 392, 342, 34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station, Behram.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner along with his co-accused was put to trial in the above FIR and the same ended in his conviction by way of judgment dated 08.12.2016 and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment was imposed upon the convicts. He further submits that aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, an appeal was filed by both the convicts jointly which carried a delay of two 1 of 7 days and a separate application for it's condonation was also filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the appellate court order dated 11.01.2017 to contend that only on the statement of his counsel, the application for condonation of delay was withdrawn, and at the same time, the notice of the appeal qua co-convict was issued to the State. Learned counsel has argued that as the application for delay stood withdrawn, therefore, subsequently his appeal was dismissed on 16.01.2019 by the appellate court. He has further contended that the counsel withdrew the application on the ground that the appellant has not contacted him and, therefore, the appellate court ought to have issued notice to the appellant before accepting the prayer. It is pointed out that the acceptance of the request of the counsel for the appellant has adversely affected the petitioner as the appeal was finally dismissed without hearing the appellant. According to learned counsel, the appeal filed by the co-convict is pending adjudication, therefore, he prays that the appeal of the petitioner be also restored for decision on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, the prayer is opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that the revision petition contains the delay of 339 days, however, the factual aspects are not disputed by him. He has referred to the reply filed by way of affidavit of Gurvinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Banga. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the petitioner (appellant) was not diligent to pursue his appeal and, therefore, he has failed to explain the delay in filing this revision. According to him, once the appellant was represented by his counsel, therefore, he cannot plead ignorance in respect of the impugned orders passed by the appellate court. He has further submitted that the request for 2 of 7 withdrawal is made every day before the Courts and, therefore, upon acceptance of the prayer, the litigant is bound by it. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed.