IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.664 of 2009 SURENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 16.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr.Appeal No.50 of 2009, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner as time barred to the extent of 3978 days. In other words, the appeal was time barred for more than 10 1/2 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court by judgment and order dated 10.2.1998 for one year under sections 279 and for two years under section 304A of the Penal Code along with fine of Rs.1000/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner after the judgment of conviction handed over all papers including Vakalatnama to his counsel in the Civil Court to file appeal who assured him that he will do so. The petitioner was all along under the impression that his appeal has been filed. However, the misfortune of the petitioner was that his counsel died. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 27.1.2009, by the police and on enquiry he came to learn that his counsel died and appeal 2 KHAN was not filed. On these basis he submits that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is a delay of more than 10 1/2 years in filing the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not negligent in pursuing the appeal. For 10 1/2 years, he did not even bother to enquire about the case. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Appellate Court in rejecting the appeal as time barred. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)