PANCHI NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under S. 397/401, Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment/order dated 3-6-2005 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Baran dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under S. 374, Cr. P. C. on the ground of limitation against the order dated 4-5-2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, District Baran, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under S. 9, Schedule-II 2/51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for one month rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the impugned orders as well as records of the courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide order/judgment dated 4-5-2005 and no application for suspension of sentence was moved on his behalf on the same day in the trial Court, therefore, he was sent to the judicial custody on the same day. The petitioner in these circumstances could not inform his family members and could not file the appeal before the District & Sessions Judge well in time and as such an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred along with appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended in the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act that the petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 4-5-2005 itself and when his son came to know about it, then he arranged the money for expenses to be incurred in filing the appeal and he came on 21-6-2005 and applied for certified copy of the Judgment and filed the appeal on 28-6-2005. therefore, there was about 25 days delay in filing the appeal. He further contended that reasons given for condonation of delay was sufficient and delay ought to have been condoned, but the learned appellate Court committed an illegality in dismissing the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act as well as appeal itself being barred by period of limitation.