Promila Vs. State of H.P. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1183 of 2025 8.8.2025 Present: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate vice Mr. Mohar Chand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G., for the respondent-State. Applicant Promila has preferred the accompanying appeal, against the order dated 4.5.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Cr. M.A. No. 1432 of 2023, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Promila’. 2. By way of order dated 4.5.2024, learned trial Court has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-, upon the applicant. Since, the appeal has been preferred within the period of limitation, as such, present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, has been filed. 3. Delay has mainly been sought to be condoned on the ground that the applicant was pregnant at the relevant time and gave birth to a male child on 2.7.2023, and due to this fact, she remained busy in taking care of her child. 4. In addition to this, prayer has been made that she is a poor person and was not having sufficient money to engage the lawyer to challenge the order dated 4.5.2024. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 6. When, put to notice, the respondent- State has contested the application, mainly on the ground that applicant is not vigilant, about her right and she was negligent in pursuing her remedy. 7. The reasons, which have been mentioned in the application, have also been contested by pleading that no cogent and convincing explanation has been put forward by the applicant to condone the delay. 8. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 9. The learned trial Court has imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- upon the surety on account of non-production of accused Vipin Kumar and Ankit Kumar. The averments, made in the application, upon which, delay has been sought to be condoned, have been supported by an affidavit. 10. Considering the factual position, as mentioned the application, it is no longer res-integra that the matter should be decided on merit and not merely on the basis of technicalities and while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt liberal approach. 11. Considering, all these facts, the applicant is able to satisfy the conscience of this Court for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed after condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. ______________ 12. Vide order of even date, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1183 of 2025, delay in filing the present appeal has been ordered to be condoned. 13. Be registered. 14. Record be called for, for 12.9.2025. Cr. MPST No. 3816 of 2025 15. Be registered. 16. During pendency of the appeal, further proceedings, in pursuance of order dated 4.5.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, in Cr. M.P. No. 1432 of 2023 and notice dated 18.3.2025, issued by Assistant Collector First Class-cum- Tehsildar (Recovery) Distt. Kullu, H.P., are ordered to be stayed. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. MPST No. 4327 of 2025 17. The application is considered and allowed. Needful be done, as and when, directed by the Court to do so. The application is, thus, disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 8, 2025 (kalpana)