IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.195 of 2009 1. MANOJ CHANDRA DAS SON OF FOOLMANI DAS 2. RATAN CHANDRA DAS, SON OF FOOLMANI DAS 3. ASHOK CHANDRA DAS, SON OF FOOLMANI DAS 4. DILIP CHANDRA DAS, SON OF FOOLMANI DAS ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- JASAULI, P.S.- BHANGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADAN CHANDRA DAS, SON OF MANINDRA CHANDRA DAS, R/O- VILLAGE- JASAULI, P.S.- BHANGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. For the petitioners : Mr. Amrendra Kumar no. I, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners constitute second party to Section 107 Cr.P.C proceeding. They are aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 144 of 2007 whereby the appeal was dismissed/disposed of in the following manner: “From perusal of the petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, I do not find any cogent ground to condone the delay and hence this Cr. Appeal is dismissed as time barred. “ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate passed the order beyond the period of six months directing the petitioners (second party to the proceeding) to execute bond for maintaining peace. It is next contended that the order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 30.5.2007, application for obtaining certified copy of the said order was made on 6.6.2007, the copy was prepared and delivered on 28.6.2007. The appeal was filed on 2.7.2007 In that view of the matter, as 2 per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the appeal was not barred by limitation although an application seems to have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the aforesaid facts are not taken into consideration, the appeal was filed few days beyond the period of limitation. In the interest of justice, learned lower appellate court ought to have allowed the same and heard the appeal on merit. Learned A.P.P. is not in a position to oppose the stand. I am satisfied from the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that a case for interference has been made out. Accordingly, order impugned dated 18.9.2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter goes on remand to the learned lower appellate court to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein on merit. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )