Umesh Sharma Vs. State of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 23.06.2025 Present: Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General for the respondent. Cr. MP(M) No.1349 of 2025 Reply to the application not filed. Applicant Umesh Sharma has filed the accompanying appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2025 and order of sentence dated dated 11.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (C.B.I. Court), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal RBT No.105-S/10 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. versus Umesh Sharma & Another. Vide judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2025 and order of sentence, dated 11.03.2025, learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent-State, which had been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.11.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted applicant Umesh Sharma and one Sanjay Sharma. Vide judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2025, while allowing the appeal of the State, partly, the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 382 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and vide order of sentence dated 11.03.2025, has been sentenced, as under:- Sr. No. Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo 1. 382 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years `20,000/- Simple imprisonment for six months. 2. 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year -- -- Learned trial Court has also directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The amount of fine has been paid/deposited by the applicant. Since, the appeal has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that after the decision of the appeal of the respondent-State by the Appellate Court, the applicant has engaged a counsel, but the time for preferring the appeal has been over. Another ground for condonation of delay is that the applicant was under the impression that revision is to be preferred as such, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. Keeping in view the low legal literacy in the Indian Masses, the applicant is able to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court. Moreover, the applicant is not going to achieve anything by not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the application under consideration is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal No. of 2025. Be registered. There are certain arguable points, involved in the present appeal, as such, the same is admitted for final hearing. Call for the records. Cr.MP No.2486 of 2025 Since the disposal of the appeal, filed by the applicant, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to herein-above, will take sufficient long time, as such, the order of sentence dated 11.03.2025, is suspended during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Appellate Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of final dismissal of the appeal, he will surrender before the learned Appellate Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence; ii) That the applicant shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court. The application is, thus, disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Appellate Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court on or before the next date. (Virender Singh) Judge June 23, 2025 (ps)