Crl. Revision No. 2330 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2330 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2010 Pamila Syal ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Y.S. Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. Petitioner was tried for offence under 420,467,468,471,477-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala in FIR No.65 dated 23.12.2000. Vide judgment and order dated 10.9.2008 petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,477-A of IPC by the trial Court. Vide order of the even date the trial Court sentenced the petitioner as under :- "Under Section 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Under Section 467 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three year. Under Section 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Under Section 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Crl. Revision No. 2330 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Under Section 477-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the appeal was filed after more than 1 year and 2 months. Vide order dated 20.5.2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the present petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Petitioner had made following statement before the trial Court on 10.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) :- "Statement of Pamila Syal d/o Sh. A.L. Syal, Chandigarh ext. NH 22.36 Kilometer Stone, Chandigarh-Delhi Highway, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali. I Pamila Syal d/o Sh. A.L. Syal MD Golden Forest, under judicial cuistody since the year 2000 now confinde in Model Jail Chandigarh hereby confess that I was appointed MD and Director at fault under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 and I am responsible for any offence committed by the company as per law being the Director. That I confess the offence of the company in this case and being only responsible plead guilty. That sentence to be awarded in this case may be remittted because I have already undergone more than 7 years and 8 months imprisonment as undser trial and as per section 428 Cr.P.C. term of imprisonment undergone in judicial custody Crl. Revision No. 2330 of 2010 (O&M) 3 may be set off against the sentence period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in the matter of Nazakakt Ali Vs. Stae of Maharastra that the period of judicial custody undergone after the inspection of any case is to be set off against the sentence period awarded by the court under section 428 Cr.P.C. I am competent to make statement on behalf of the company under section 305 Cr.P.C." In terms of the said statement made by the petitioner, the petitioner was held guilty of an offence under Sections 420,467,468,471,477-A IPC by the trial Court and was sentenced qua the said offences vide order dated 10.9.2008. Apparently, the petitioner was satisfied with the judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as the same had been passed on the basis of the confessional statement made by the petitioner. The petitioner had categorically made a statement that he confesses the offences committed by the Company in this case and being only responsible pleaded guilty. Although, delay in filing the criminal appeal is not very material and is liable to be condoned in normal circumstances by the Appellate Court, but the facts and circumstances of the present case are different. In the present case, the order of conviction and sentence was passed by the trial Court on the basis of confessional statement suffered by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner waited for 1 year and 2 months before filing the appeal. Apparently, the petitioner was satisfied with the judgment of the conviction as it was passed on the basis of his statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitoner had only confessed qua the offence committed by the Company. However, Crl. Revision No. 2330 of 2010 (O&M) 4 the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit as the petitioner had specifically stated in his statement that he was only responsible person of the company and had pleaded guilty. In view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) November 29, 2010 JUDGE Anand