In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2153 of 2008 Date of Decision:22-01-2009 Santokh Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner SABINA, J.(Oral) Petitioner-Santokh Singh was convicted under Section 419/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala vide judgment dated 19.3.2007 and vide order of the even date he was ordered to be released on probation. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide order dated 18.7.2008, the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar and consequently the appeal was dismissed being time barred. Notice of motion. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice, on the asking of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar had erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay on hyper technical grounds. Petitioner had fallen ill Crl. Revision No. 2153 of 2008 -2- and due to this reason he was unable to contact his counsel for filing the appeal. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was intentional and deliberate. Petitioner in order to prove his case examined AW-1 Dr. Varinder Kumar, who testified that the petitioner had remained admitted with him from 25.3.2007 to 25.5.2007, 26.5.2007 to 30.7.2007 and then from 31.7.2005 to 25.9.2007. Petitioner was suffering from hypertension with U.T. Infection and dislocation. As per certificate Exhibit P-2, the petitioner was suffering from hypertension with muscular pain. The doctor further testified that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension with lower spondyless vertigo. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others AIR 1987 SC 1353 has held as under:- “1.Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” done not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are Crl. Revision No. 2153 of 2008 -3- pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5.There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6.It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” In the present case, the case of the petitioner is that he could not file the appeal in time as he was unwell. Keeping in view the observations of Hon'ble the supreme court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector, Anantnag and another (supra) , it cannot be said that the delay in filing the appeal was deliberate or intentional as the petitioner would not gain by filing the appeal late. Moreover, it is in the interest of justice, if the appeal has been decided on merits. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 30.1.2009. (SABINA) JUDGE January 22, 2009 PARAMJIT