ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT Vs. PAWAN KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For condonation of delay in moving application under section 378(4) for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16.11.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, the applicant has moved application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 482 Cr.P.C.(for short the Act) for condonation of delay of 465 days in bringing the same.

(2.) Besides making an averment that the appellant is filing the accompanying appeal which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein, it is claimed that lawyer of the applicant-appellant in the trial court made the appellant to understand that limitation for filing the appeal is 180 days. He further averred that the advocate at Chandigarh, however, told the appellant that the limitation for filing the appeal is 60 days and as such the appeal was barred by limitation by 118 days when it was initially filed. According to the applicant, the appeal was returned with the objection and the same was filed after removing the same and in this process, delay of 465 days occurred. It is further averred that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bonafide belief of the applicant that the limitation for filing the appeal against acquittal is 180 days. It is further claimed that the appellant is not going to gain anything in delaying the appeal and the same is prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that originally the appeal was filed without any delay. According to him, objections were raised by the Registry and in removing the same, the delay of 465 days has occurred.