SHANTI DEVI Vs. GULSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2500 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dtd. 3/3/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant-appellant against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 3/6/2016 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat whereby respondents (herein) were acquitted from the charges framed against them for the offences under Ss. 494, 114 and 34 IPC. The applicant-appellant, by way of instant appeal, impugns the abovesaid two judgments to the extent of acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Ss. 494, 114 and 34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 2500 days, has argued that the delay of 2500 days in filing the present criminal appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred solely due to a bona fide and inadvertent error on the part of the earlier counsel who had represented the applicant before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel while referring to the paper-book has submitted that the record would reveal that the applicant had earlier preferred an appeal against the judgment dtd. 3/6/2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat, before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. However, the said appeal was wrongly filed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, instead before this Court. It is further submitted that the said appeal remained pending for a considerable period and was eventually dismissed on 3/3/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, on the ground that the appeal itself was not maintainable before that Court. Learned counsel has, accordingly, argued that only after the pronouncement of the order dtd. 3/3/2025, the applicant come to know that the appeal was required to be filed before this Court, and not before the Sessions Court. He has further submitted that it is thereafter the applicant, upon receiving proper legal advice, has now approached this Court by filing the present appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has further submitted that an application for condonation of delay ought to be considered liberally, particularly, where the applicant-petitioner has good case on merits. On these submissions, condonation of delay of 2500 days in filing the appeal has been sought.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and have perused the paper-book.