SUDARSHAN BARETH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred by the complainant Sudarshan Bareth under Section 341 Cr.P.C. is pending on the defect side and is delayed by 19 days. Learned counsel Shri Jog Singh has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation At on behalf of the appellant for condonation of delay occasioned in filing the appeal. It is stated in such application that the appellant is serving in the Jet Airways and was posted at Chennai and thus, initially he could not apply for certified copy of the impugned order and also that he was not sanctioned leave by his employer and hence he was genuinely and bonafidely prevented from approaching his counsel at Jodhpur for filing the appeal against the order dated 12.01.2017 whereby, the application preferred by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the respondent for the offence under Section 191 IPC was rejected.

(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Jog Singh on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of the appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) Upon having considered the grounds set out in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and upon appreciating the arguments advanced at bar, this Court feels that the reasons seeking condonation of delay as set out in the application are totally flimsy and far fetched. The order under challenge was passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur on 12.01.2017. The appellant had previously as well, filed an almost identical application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 24.08.2016 and the appeal preferred against such rejection order being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.914/2016 was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2017 which has a significant bearing on the present matter and would be referred to later on. Thus apparently, the appellant has been diligently and persistently pursuing the matter against the respondent in the Family Court, Udaipur as well as in this Court. He has been filing repeated applications against the respondent and thus manifestly, the ground set out in the delay condonation application that the appellant was prevented from timely challenging the impugned judgment owing to the constraints of his job is patently unacceptable and untenable. Certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017 was procured by the appellant on 21.01.2017. The appellant had a window of almost two months thereafter to file the instant appeal which came to be presented in this court as late as on 10.04.2017. The application for condonation of delay is totally bereft of particulars as to when the appellant applied for leave or whether he was denied leave by his employer to approach his counsel at Jodhpur for filing the instant appeal. That apart, the appeal is not required to be supported by any affidavit and the appellant was not required to come down to Jodhpur in person for presenting the same. He already had availed the services of the same counsel in the previous round of litigation and could have orally instructed him to file the appeal. The requisite documents and the Vakalatnama could be transmitted by post. Legal fees can be remitted by bank transfers. Thus, I am not convinced in the least by the grounds set out in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay of 19 days in filing of the present appeal.