2025:HHC:29405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1337 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.8.2025 Date of Decision: 30.8.2025. Manohar Lal ...Applicant Versus Prasoon Kamal (deceased through LRs) ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Applicant : Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of 337 days’ delay in filing the criminal revision. It has been asserted that the applicant’s criminal appeal was dismissed on 8.7.2024. He was unable to apply for the judgment and documents to challenge the judgment passed in the criminal appeal due to compelling circumstances. The applicant started a business in the interior parts of Kinnaur in May 2023. His father-in-law passed away on 27.4.2024. His son met with an 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29405 accident in May 2025. There was no mobile network in the remote regions of Kinnaur, and he remained unaware of the dismissal of the appeal. The applicant came to Bhawanagar on 2.6.2025, and he was apprehended by the police. The delay was caused due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Respondent has suffered prolonged litigation since 2013. The applicant was directed by the learned Appellate Court to surrender within one month, but he failed to do so. The applicant slept on his rights for about one year. He has not given any cogent reason for the condonation of delay. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was working in the remote area of 3 2025:HHC:29405 Kinnaur, which had poor mobile connectivity. He could not ascertain the status of his appeal. His father-in-law died, and his son met with an accident, which caused mental distress to the applicant and his family members. Therefore, she prayed that the present application may be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be ordered to be condoned. 5. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has not assigned any cogent reason for condonation of delay. As per the applicant, his father-in-law died in April 2024, whereas the judgment was pronounced in July 2024. Any circumstance before the passing of the judgment does not constitute a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The applicant’s son met with an accident in June 2025 after the dismissal of the appeal. He has failed to assign any reasonable cause for the condonation of the delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4 2025:HHC:29405 7. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay occurred either before dismissal of the appeal or much afterwards. The applicant’s father-in-law expired on 27.4.2024, and his son met with an accident in May, 2025 whereas the appeal was decided on 8.7.2024. The death of the applicant’s father-in-law in April 2024 or the accident of his son in May, 2025 will not give any reason for the applicant not to prefer the appeal within the limitation period. 8. It was asserted that the applicant was serving in a remote area at Kinnaur, and he could not know about the dismissal of the appeal. However, he has not explained how he came to know about the death of his father-in-law or the accident of his son. The fact that he was able to ascertain these facts shows that he had the means of communication, and the same means could have been employed to know about the dismissal of the appeal. 9. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the applicant evaded the process of law, and he only approached the Court when he was arrested by the police. This submission 5 2025:HHC:29405 appears to be correct. The application mentions that the applicant was arrested when he had visited Bhawanagar. This supports the respondents’ submission that he was negligent in not pursuing his remedies and decided to pursue his remedy after he was arrested. 10. Therefore, the applicant/petitioner has failed to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 11. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. Cr. Revision (ST) No. 5105 of 2025 12. Since the application for condonation of delay (Cr.MP(M) No. 1337 of 2025) has been dismissed, therefore, the proposed revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th August 2025 (Chander)