LAHOOT HASSAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged order dtd. 21/2/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, whereby, delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dtd. 5/6/2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar has been condoned.

(2.) It appears that a challan emanating from FIR No.VOK15/1996 for offences under Ss. 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B RPC of Police Station VOK Srinagar was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar. After trial of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his judgment and order dtd. 5/6/2014, acquitted the petitioners of the charges for offences under Ss. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC. The said judgment was assailed by the respondent herein by way of an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The appeal was filed before the Appellate Court on 6/6/2016 i.e after a delay of about one year and 9 months. Alongwith the appeal, the respondent moved an application before the learned Appellate Court seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, primarily on the grounds that due to the devastating floods of September, 2014 the case diary and other related record pertaining to the matter got damaged which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Appellate Court vide its impugned order dtd. 21/2/2018 accepted the cause shown by the respondent as sufficient and accordingly condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. It is this order of the Appellate Court which is under challenge in these proceedings.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioners that delay in filing an appeal on account of administrative reasons is not a sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is further contended that even after grant of sanction for filing of the appeal on 20/7/2015, it took almost one year for the respondent to file the appeal and the delay in this regard has remained unexplained. It has been further contended that after the devastating floods of September, 2014, all the Courts including, the High Court started functioning in the month of October, 2014, as such, there was no reason for the respondent to file the appeal belatedly. It is also contended that there is no explanation tendered by the respondent as to why it took seven months to issue 2nd sanction order in favour of the Public Prosecutor and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal after the grant of 2nd sanction order on 19/2/2016. According to the petitioners all these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order.