IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1803 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 10.08.2009 Mohan Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Crl.Misc.No.34793 of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 39 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Crl.Misc.Application stands disposed of. Crl.Rev.No.1803 of 2009 The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.3.2009 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, on the question of delay holding it to be barred by limitation as there is delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has taken me to the application which the petitioner had preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, explaining the delay of two months and 21 days in filing the appeal. A perusal of the same would show that the petitioner was in jail when he received the certified copy of the order. He, Crl.Rev.No.1803 of 2009 -2- thereafter handed it over to one of his relatives to file an appeal. He under a bona fide belief that the appeal would have been preferred by his relatives, did not take any further steps but on coming to know about the non-filing of the appeal, he applied before the Legal Services Authority, Haryana, for help as he could not engage a counsel being a poor person. There was no other person to look after his interest and, therefore, Legal Services Authority, Haryana, has provided him a counsel. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred by the aid of Legal Services Authority after collection of the documents. Counsel, on this basis, submits that the present revision petition may be allowed and the case be remanded to the learned Lower Appellate Court for decision on merits. Counsel for the State does not dispute the factual position as has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner while referring to the application dated 21.2.2009 preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner which are fully supported by the application wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was unable to engage a counsel and at the outset made an effort through his relative to file an appeal, the intention is, thus, always there but due to financial constraints, he was not in a position to prefer the appeal thereby forcing him to take recourse to free legal support which was indeed granted to him and an appeal was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay. An accused who is a convict and is lodged in jail, at times, is handicapped to pursue his matter because of being not in a position to move out of the custody and engage a Crl.Rev.No.1803 of 2009 -3- counsel and, therefore, has to depend upon he relatives or well-wishers for the said purpose. In the present case, the person on whom he is depended upon, has failed him and then he had to take recourse to and taken support from the Haryana Legal Services Authority. The intention, therefore, was always there on the part of the petitioner to prefer an appeal as he intended to challenge the order of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. That being so, a person who is already in custody should be given an opportunity to get his grievances redressed on merits. It would, thus, be in the interest of justice that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is heard and decided on merits rather than the statutory remedy which has been made available to him being scuttled merely on technicalities of delay. In any case, the delay in filing the appeal has been duly explained by the petitioner in his application before the Lower Appellate Court. Keeping in view the above situation, the impugned order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the case is remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for deciding the same on merits. The applicant would be at liberty to move an application before the Lower Appellate Court for suspension of sentence which shall be heard and decided expeditiously by taking a lenient view. Petition stands disposed of. August 10, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE