SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 27.7.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Cr. M.P. No. 50 -S/4 of 2011 has been assailed in the petition. The Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner and one Suresh Kumar were prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 160 IPC, both were convicted on 5.9.2007 and keeping in view of their poor status and young age both accused were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 100/ - each under Section 160 IPC and were awarded sentence till rising of the court by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla in Criminal Case No.161 -2 of 2006.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the application for condonation of delay is not elaborate. He has submitted that in substance the petitioner was under the impression that the Judicial Magistrate has given the verdict and the case has been closed. The petitioner was not aware of the implication of the verdict which has deprived him government job even though he was selected inasmuch as he was not given character certificate in view of his indictment by the Court in the criminal case. On realizing the implication and seriousness of the matter, the petitioner had filed the appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 5.9.2007 so that the said judgment may not again be used by the authorities to deprive the petitioner public employment. It has been stated that the petitioner is 24 years and the alleged offence was committed when the petitioner was hardly 18 years old. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned order.