IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No.235 of 2008 Smt. Heera Devi, W/o Late Sri Kunwar Ram, R/o Village- Dhaun, P.S. Lohaghat, District- Champawat. …… Appellant Versus State ….. Respondent. Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate, Amicus curiae for the accused-appellant. Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. Date 15th September 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)} 1. This is an appeal received from the convict, who is undergoing sentence, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, vide judgment and order dated 20th July 1998, passed in Sessions Trial No.98 of 1996. 2. Ms. Anjali Noliyal is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-appellant. 3. Heard Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the appellant and Sri Amit Bhatt, A.G.A. for the State. 4. The appeal is got sent through jail after delay of 3661 days (i.e. after 10 years) of recording of conviction. Nothing has been mentioned by the convict in the appeal sent through the Superintendent, District Jail, as to why the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. Had it been a case where the delay had occurred of couple of months or couple of years, we could have thought it just and proper to condone the delay; but filing of appeal 2 after ten years requires special reasons for condoning the delay, which we do not find on the record. We think it just and proper to mention here that under Rule 118 of the General Rules (Criminal), the record of Sessions Trial gets weeded out on completion of ten years with permission of Sessions Judge. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by admitting this appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed in limine, as barred by time. (B.S.Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15-09-2008 RCP 3 4