STATE OF H.P. Vs. PIARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent, Piare Lal was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court (1), Shimla for commission of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C. The accusation was that Respondent was driving vehicle namely, bus bearing registration No. HPA 6479 belonging to H.P Corporation (Parwanoo Region) in a rash/negligent manner on a public road so as to endanger human life and safety and while driving so near the Petrol Pump at Sanjauli, hit the said vehicle with Shri Bali Ram who received fatal injuries on his person and he consequently died in the hospital On appraisal of evidence the learned Judge gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondent accused and recorded the impugned order of acquittal vide his Judgment dated August 21, 1990 The State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the said findings of the learned Judge under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The grounds of appeal was accompanied with an application seeking leave to appeal which is registered as Cr M.P. (M) No. 498 of 1991. Appeal has not been registered for it is pending admission. As per the report of the Registry, aforesaid appeal was barred by limitation by 8 days after deducting the period spent for procuring the copy etc. Various other objections were also raised by the Registry and as such, appeal was returned to the learned Advocate General for removing the objections and to re-file the same within seven days. However, the report shows that the said appeal alongwith Cr M P. (M) was re-filed after removing the objections on 27th of June, 1991. Alongwith it an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed on the date of re-filing the appeal that is 27th of June, 1991, for the first time. Earlier the appeal was not accompanied by such an application.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondent that the appeal is time barred. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the appeal was not accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was ultimately filed on 27th of June, 1991. Further, it is pointed out that even the objections so raised by the Registry were not complied within time limit provided by them nor any explanation has been given as to why delay was caused for removing the objections and re-filing the same.