THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 147 of 2010 Date: 03.02.2010 Between: Gunadala Edwin. .. Petitioner. And State of A.P., rep. by the S.H.O., Chilakaluripet, through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 147 of 2010 Order: The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the orders dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P. No.1056 of 2009 in an unnumbered appeal. Heard. The learned Sessions Judge, holding that there are no grounds to condone the huge delay and that the petitioner being a Government servant cannot be said to be not aware of the provisions of law and has not preferred the appeal within time and therefore there are no grounds to condone the delay, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 923 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 05.07.2006 passed in C.C. No.595 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner did not intend to challenge the said conviction since he was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but when he was removed from service in 2007, it became necessary for the petitioner to challenge the judgment dated 05.07.2006 passed in C.C. No.595 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet. The Courts must be liberal in condoning the delay. It appears that the petitioner has properly explained the delay. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was suffering from ill-health and was affected with viral Hepatitis from 01.04.2007 to 31.02.2008. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is as follows. 12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence. Thus, it is clear that when the accused is dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, by virtue of Section 12 referred to above, such person shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Therefore, for the purpose of selection or continuing in the job it is to be held that the conviction should be treated as non est in the eye of law. It is most unfortunate that when the petitioner was extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act and released under Section 4 of the said Act, he was removed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been taking separate steps to challenge his removal order. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. The Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner herein shall be registered and dealt with in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 03.02.2010 Nsr