IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.190 of 2009 Jageer Singh ………..Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary State …….Respondent Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Dated: December 3, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder appearing for the State. With the consent of both the parties, present revision is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. It seems that two accused Jagtar Singh and Jageer Singh (present revisionist) were convicted for an offence under section 51/52 Wild Life Protection Act by the Trial Court. Both accused were awarded sentence for one year of R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/- each. It also appears from the record that revisionist is in jail. From the record, it is also clear that another accused Jagtar Singh had filed an appeal against the conviction order and was enlarged on bail by Appellate Court. From the impugned order, it is also clear that revisionist could not file the appeal in time and still he is in jail. His application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected by the impugned order by observing that no satisfactory reason has been assigned to condone the delay in filing the appeal. I am of the view that if appellant is in jail pursuant to the order of conviction passed by Trial Court and appeal is filed by him with delay condonation application then delay condonation application should be considered sympathetically. It is basic principle of law that none should be left unheard. Denial of hearing to the appellant on technical ground does not seem to be proper. Delay of 138 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. Inordinate delay should not be condoned if some valuable rights are created/vested meanwhile in favour of opposite party. However, this is not the situation in the present case. In view of this present revision is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned, order passed by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar dated 10.09.2009 is set aside. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to admit the appeal and hear the appellant on bail as well on merit. (Alok Singh, J.) 03.12.2009 JKJ