1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1206/2009. Pyarchand Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::: 4th December 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Manish Pitaliya, for the petitioner. Mr. Panney Singh, Public Prosecutor for State. .... Though listed in Court No.15, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a mention stating urgency. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case where regular criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court only on the ground of limitation; and looking to the nature of accusation under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the nature of sentence awarded, it appears just and proper and to dispose of this revision petition at this stage itself without waiting for the record. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor have been heard finally. It is borne out from the material placed on record that the petitioner was tried in Criminal Regular Case No.889/2003 (311/1999) by the Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act on the accusation that he was found carrying about 125 pouches 2 of country liquor on a moped bearing registration number RJ 09 7561. After taking the evidence, the learned Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 02.05.2009, proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence charged of; and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and to undergo 10 days' further simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It has been pointed out during the course of submissions that the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within time and, pursuant to the judgment and order aforesaid, was arrested on 22.10.2009. It appears that the petitioner proceeded to address the jail appeal on 03.11.2009 that was received by the Appellate Court on 04.11.2009. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved before the Appellate Court with the submissions that the petitioner had gone out of the State of Rajasthan for earning his livelihood as a labourer and then, could not file the appeal for his indisposition and for the lawyers at the relevant place abstaining from work. The Appellate Court was not impressed with the reasons as suggested by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal particularly for want of necessary particulars on the dates of his going out of the State of 3 Rajasthan and of his illness; and even the requisite prescription slips or proof of ailment having not been produced. The Appellate Court, thus, proceeded to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation without going into the merits of the case. In the totality of the circumstances of the present case, this Court is of opinion that even if the grounds as suggested by the petitioner for condonation of delay were not carrying all the necessary details and specifications, the nature of accusation and the nature of sentence could have been examined by the learned Appellate Court to find at least prima facie if there was an arguable case on merits. In the matter of the present nature, the petitioner was not going to gain any advantage by intentionally delaying the appeal. It is noticed from the submissions made before the Court that the petitioner is already in custody since 22.10.2009 and this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if without any other comments, the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 be set aside to the extent of dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; and while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Court be directed to decide the appeal on its merits 4 without otherwise granting any indulgence or relaxation to the petitioner in respect of the execution of sentence in this case. Of course, for such indulgence being not granted by this Court, it shall be expected of the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits with utmost expedition and as early as possible. As a result of the aforesaid, this criminal revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 is set aside to the extent that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court stands allowed, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be registered to its regular number and shall be decided by the learned Appellate Court on its merits with utmost expedition. The learned Appellate Court, in the first instance, shall take up the appeal on 11.12.2009 and then, shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK