Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order dated 10.9.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, by virtue of which the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 25.5.2010 was dismissed being time barred.

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a case was registered against the petitioner and two other persons u/s 13 of the Public Gambling Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') and recovery of currency notes worth Rs.8,000/-along with 52 playing cards was made from them, which was taken into possession by the police. After recording the evidence, learned trial Court held the accused guilty u/s 13 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.50/-each. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment, Manjit Singh/petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 305 days in filing the appeal, which was dismissed by the said Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted u/s 13 of the Act vide judgment dated 25.5.2010 and copy thereof was supplied to him on the same very day. The ground for condonation of delay that petitioner was not aware about the time limit for filing appeal, is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/-and it appears that after payment of fine he was satisfied with the impugned judgment and that is why he kept mum four about ten months and did not knock the door of the appellate Court immediately after his conviction. It is not probable that the petitioner was not aware about the limitation period for filing appeal and on one fine morning he suddenly woke up and filed the appeal and that too after about ten months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

It is well settled principle of law that ignorance of law is not a valid ground for condonation of delay. For seeking condonation of delay, each day''s delay has to be explained. But in the present case, the petitioner has failed to give plausible explanation for condonation of 305 days.

In view of this, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.