K aj BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISbARH A'T CRI.MISC.PETITION NO. 5E I OF 2007 BILASPUR§ C.G. 1 APPLICANT] : Bhagwan Das Viskarma AN , ' .." ¢ " of block no. 20, Plot No. 4, COMPLAIN/g ,r \ Son aged of about Tripanlal 58 years, Viskarma, resident W ION ’ FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 f o /,fmLf) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPLICAT ’ ‘ f §é - x $>\/’<{ ‘7 " .- q§ FO‘ wc- Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarth. , VERSUS NON-APPLICANT] ACCUSED : Assan Das Mohnani, Son of Hariram Das Mohnani, aged about 45 years, resident of Opposite Sittai Ashram, Patankar Colony, Sindhi Coiony, Durg ( C G ) ‘W HIGH CGURT OF CiiHATTESGARE-I‘AT BEL&S?E§R SE : HGN‘ELE MR. JII$TICE PRETII§KER DIWAKER CRJVLPJWG. 55 1 12007 PETETEGNER Bhagwam Das Viskarma afJ‘ § @ V€ISU S RESPONDENTS Assam Das Mohnani Shn T K Tlwan coullsel for the apnhcant Smt Fouzm Muza counsal for “is rmpondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 H—i GF THE Cr.P.C. ORDER (26.04.2010; The preSsnt petition which is barred by 34 days is directedi against the order dated 14.6.2007 passeil by the 4th Aiiditional Sessions Judge Durg in Cr.A. NO. 156j 2006 whereby the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeai of the accused] resnondexit by setting as‘de the conv1ctlon order dated 6 11 2006 passed by the learned Jud1c1al Magmtrate Fnst Class, Dmg ' 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the application for condonation of delay stating therein that the applicant was suffering mm jaundice, he could not iile the present petition in time and therefore'the delay be condoned in the laxger interest ofjustice. 3. On the other hand this annheation has been seriously contested by Smt Fouma Mina and she submits that the reasons as51gned 1n the application are mvolous and the applicant was not suffering from Jaundice as mentioned by him in his application. She submits that even no medical certiiicate has been tiled by the applicant indicating that he Was suffering from Jaundice. It has been vehemently argued that though the applicant has claimed that he was suEering from jaundice but this statement is totally Incorrect because the anphcant was regularly at ending vanous Court proceedmgs of me Court below, 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. In para 2 of fhe application for condonation of delay it has been mentioned by the applicant that he was suffering fmm Jaundice and was advised complete bed rest. Though this statement has been made on oath by the applicant but not a single document has been tiled by the applicant including the medical certificate that he was suffering from Jaundice. Further even the applicant has not stated as to when he fell sick and. when he got recovered from his siclmess and Without mentioning the date and period this application has been nled. &%wmsh 6. On the contrary, if the reply of this application and the documents as filed by the non-applicants is considered it appears that on 26.6.2007 in Criminal Case NO. 60-Bj’2006 the applicant has sworn the afhdavit and has appeared before the Court on 13.8.2007 and was duly examined and cross examined in the civil suit. Again on 5.9.07, in case no. 646/ 2005 he has appeared and was cross examined. Further recovery suit was tiled on 12.10.07 vide Annexure Rl3 and on 22.8.07 in case No. 827106 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class one application was hled by him. From the above factual aspect it is thus apparent that the applicant was regulariy attending and prosecuting the cases before the Court below but has not bothered to hle the present petition within time and has taken frivolous ground of his sickness by stating that he was suffering from jaundice and no document or medical certificate has been filed by the petitioner in support of his application. Further he has not explained the delay as required under the law and the application for condonation of delay appears to have been filed in a very casual manner. After due consideran'on this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to explain the delay of 34 days and therefore his application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition itself is dismissed. /,;>/" , 7 prlt‘mke Judge ./, n: % mw.