IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2010 With Delay Condonation Appn. 92 / 2010 Virendra Kumar S/o Late Ram Kishore R/o Village Chauda Kuwan Kazi Ki Sarai, Moradabad District Moradabad. ...…………. Revisionist [ Versus State of Uttarakand ...…………. Respondent Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 92 of 2010, moved on behalf of the revisionist / applicant, for condonation of delay in moving this revision. Heard and perused the affidavit filed with the application. The cause shown is found sufficient. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2). Also, heard on criminal revision. 2 3) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.09.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby he has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and refused to condone the delay, in entertaining the appeal. 4) Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Virendra Kumar was convicted under Section 498-A, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 06.03.2009, passed in Criminal Case No. 1561 of 2006. He was sent to jail. The appeal should have been filed by 6th of April 2009, but the convict filed an appeal with the delay of 146 days. The ground taken in the application for condonation of delay by the convict before the lower appellate court was that he was in jail and could not make arrangement to engage a counsel. The brother of the convict, who filed affidavit with the application for condonation of delay, stated in the affidavit that after Virendra Kumar was sent to jail there was no one to look after his case or to make arrangement of money for payment to the lawyer. However, the Sessions Judge did not accept the explanation for delay, and rejected the application treating the ground to be insufficient. 5) Having gone through the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, this Court 3 finds the same to be perverse and untenable in law. When the appellant (present revisionist) was in jail, the Sessions Judge should have no difficulty in accepting the explanation offered in filing the appeal at a delayed stage. The impugned order refusing the condonation of delay is liable to be set aside. 6) Therefore, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, is set aside. The application for condonation of delay, moved with the appeal on behalf of the convict Virendra Kumar, stands allowed. It is further directed that the appeal after admission, shall be transferred by the Sessions Judge to any Addl. Sessions Judge, who shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind that the revisionist is in jail. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 16, 2010. H.Negi