IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.92 of 2007 Judgment reserved on:18.03.2008. Decided on:March 20, 2008. State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Ramesh Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the State : Mr Shashi Bhushan, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge The State has filed this revision against the order dated 27.4.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Misce. No.26/2007 titled State of H.P. versus Ramesh Kumar dismissing the application of petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence. 2. The facts, in brief, are that learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba vide judgment dated 9.1.2007/10.1.2007 in Criminal case No.513-1/05 convicted respondent Ramesh Kumar under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of Rs.2000 under Section 304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, the respondent was directed to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The petitioner had filed appeal against the judgment dated 9.1.2007/10.1.2007 under Section 377 Cr.P.C. for enhancement. The appeal was barred by time, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. The respondent contested the application. The learned Sessions Judge on 27.4.2007 dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, consequently the appeal was also dismissed. The order dated 27.4.2007 has been assailed by way of revision in this Court. 3. I have heard Mr.A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State, Mr.Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The law of limitation is procedural law and is to be applied liberally with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record that the petitioner intentionally, knowingly, deliberately acted negligently. On the contrary, all necessary steps were taken with due diligence to procure the certified copy of the judgment. Three persons died in the accident, therefore, State decided to file the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate for enhancement. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that law of limitation is equally applicable to …3… the State. The petitioner has acted negligently, no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay and, therefore, learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that no case for condonation of delay has been made out. On merits also, the petitioner has no case. He has supported the impugned order. 4. The petitioner had filed the appeal for enhancement of sentence against the judgment dated 9.1.2007/10.1.2007, such appeal is governed by Article 115(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act and limitation for filing such appeal is 30 days. No doubt, it has been pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that the certified copy of the judgment was applied on 12.1.2007 and the application was given to the copying agency of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. On 24.2.2007 the petitioner came to know that the file was not consigned to that copying agency, therefore, petitioner again applied for certified copy of the trial Court judgment on 27.2.2007 in the Court which was delivered on 1.3.2007. The appeal and the condonation of delay application were filed in the Court on 15.3.2007. No explanation has been given in the application for condoning the delay from 1.3.2007 to 15.3.2007. In addition to this, the important factor is that the learned trial Magistrate has convicted the respondent under Section 279 IPC for six months imprisonment and under Section 304- A IPC two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000 and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one month. The maximum punishment under Section 279 IPC is six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000 or with both, the maximum punishment under Section 304-A IPC is imprisonment for two years …4… or with fine or with both. The learned trial Magistrate under Section 279 IPC has imposed maximum substantive sentence of six months. Similarly, under Section 304-A IPC he has imposed maximum substantive sentence of two years along with fine of Rs.2000. The trial Magistrate has exercised judicial discretion in imposing sentence. 5. No doubt, law of limitation is to be applied liberally and some times in a given case certain amount of latitude is to be given to the State as observed by Apex Court in State of Nagaland Versus Lipok Ao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752. In the present case, the State has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay from 24.2.2007 to 27.2.2007 and then from 1.3.2007 to 15.3.2007 when the appeal and condonation of delay application were filed in the appellate Court. The condonation of delay application is completely silent about the delay from 1.3.2007 to 15.3.2007. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and no case for interference has been made out by the petitioner, hence, revision petition is dismissed. March 20, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) …5… 1. Criminal Revision No.143 of 2007: Sat Parkash Goel & Anr. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents. 2. Criminal Revision No.151 of 2007: Lalit Mohan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. *** …6… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.151 of 2007. Judgment reserved on:10.03.2008. Decided on:March 17, 2008. Lalit Mohan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the petitioner: Mr Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For the State: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge 3. For judgment, see judgment of even date, rendered in Criminal Revision No.143 of 2007 titled Sat Parkash Goel and Another versus State of H.P. and Another. Cr.M.P.No.609/2007: Infructuous. March 17, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …7…