ROHIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide Cr. Revision No.52/2016, Cr. Revision No.56/2016 and connected MP's on account of identical challenge in both petitions to the impugned orders condoning delay while entertaining appeal against acquittal on the ground that delay was condoned despite "Sufficient Cause" not having been established.

(2.) Cr. Revision No.52/2016 has been filed u/s 435 of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative u/s 104 of the Constitution of J&K seeking quashing of order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua in File No.292/Criminal Misc., titled State through SSP Kathua v. Vikram Kumar on the ground that delay of 155 days had been condoned despite sufficient cause not having been established. Likewise, Cr. Revision No.56/2016 has been filed u/s 435 of the Cr.P.C. and in the alternative u/s 104 of the Constitution of J&K seeking quashing of order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua in File No.279/Criminal Misc. titled State through SSP Kathua v. Rohit Kumar on the ground that delay of 229 days in filing a time barred appeal had been condoned despite sufficient cause not having been established.

(3.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of Cr. Revision No.52/2016 as per averments contained therein are that the petitioner was falsely implicated for the commission of offences u/S's 279/304-A RPC and pursuant to registration of FIR and investigation in respect thereto, final report was presented before the Court, full-fledged trial was conducted in which the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the Court of the Learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Kathua vide judgment dated 30.05.2015. Appeal against acquittal was filed before the Court of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua after the expiry of period of limitation along with an application for condonation of delay i.e. Annexure-C, whereupon the petitioner was summoned and in response to the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner filed a detailed response i.e. Annexure-D. After hearing arguments, the Learned Lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 17.08.2016 condoned delay of 155 days in late filing of the appeal.