1. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024 and Cr.MP No.2779 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025 State of H.P. …Applicant Versus Dharam Chand alias Chand …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Arjun Lal & Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates. Virender Singh, Judge The State of Himachal Pradesh has filed Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024, for seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying appeal, which has been filed against the judgment dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court), by virtue of which, respondent Dharam Chand alias Chand, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) IPC and has been sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the State on the ground of inadequacy of sentence, as referred to above. The appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the application for condonation of delay has been moved on the ground that after passing of the said judgment by the learned trial Court, the same was examined by the District Attorney/Public Prosecutor, Kullu, and then, was sent to District Magistrate, Kullu. Thereafter, the same was sent to Principal Secretary (Home), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, by the District Magistrate Kullu, for taking final decision. The matter was received in the Home Department, on 31.07.2023 and diarized on 05.08.2023. 3. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Law Department, for seeking their opinion on 07.08.2023, which was received back on 21.08.2023 and thereafter, the matter was submitted to the competent authority on 22.08.2023 for consideration and taking decision. The competent authority, after examining the same on 23.08.2023 has decided to file the instant appeal, before this Court and vide letter dated 3. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 25.08.2023 of the Home Department, the case file was forwarded to the office of learned Advocate General with a request to file an appeal before this Court. However, the learned Advocate General, vide his letter dated 01.09.2023 requested the Home Department to supply certified copy of the judgment along with the application for condonation of delay. 4. The request was made from District Magistrate Kullu, vide letter dated 30.09.2023 and thereafter the District Magistrate, Kullu, vide letter dated 14.11.2023 forwarded certified copy of the judgment to the Home Department, which was received on 23.11.2023 and thereafter the application for condonation of delay has been prepared. Hence, the delay of 211 days, has been sought to be condoned, whereas, according to the limitation calculated by this Court, there is a delay of 270 days. 5. The application was filed on 16.02.2024. As per the Scrutiny Branch of this Court, the certified copy of the learned trial Court judgment has not been filed. Due to the said objection, the file was returned to the learned Advocate General. Thereafter, the same has not been refiled within the stipulated period, as such, Cr.MP No.3704 of 2024 has been filed. 4. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 6. By way of the said application i.e. Cr.MP No.3704 of 2024, delay of 94 days, in refiling the appeal has been sought to be condoned by pleading that the objection was raised by the Registry of this Court, on 15.03.2024 and the same was received on 19.03.2024. Thereafter, the letter was written to the Secretary (Home), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to remove objections on 21.03.2024. The Secretary (Home) has returned the file, after removing the objection on 29.06.2024, which was received in the office of learned Advocate General, on 02.07.2024 and the appeal has been refiled on 05.07.2024. 7. In view of objection raised on 23.07.2024, the application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal has been filed on the ground that the delay in refiling the appeal, after removing objections was neither intentional nor deliberate, but, the same was due to the reason that in view of order passed in Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2023, the State was directed to file two appeals, one for enhancement and other against acquittal, whereas, only one certified copy of judgment of learned trial Court was received and due to this reason, request was made to Secretary (Home) on 21.03.2024 to provide one more certified copy of the judgment dated 5. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 18.05.2023, which was received on 02.07.2024 and the appeal was refiled on 05.07.2024. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. 9. When put to notice, the respondent has filed reply to these applications. 9.1. While, filing the reply to the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024, preliminary objections has been taken that no sufficient cause has been put forward for condonation of delay. Highlighting the fact that the appeal was prepared on 10.01.2024 and the same was filed on 16.02.2024, it has been pleaded that objections qua non filing of the certified copy of judgment, dated 18.05.2023, was raised by the Registry of this Court, on 15.03.2024 and the appeal was refiled on 05.07.2024. Thereafter Cr.MP No.3704 of 2024 was filed on 30.07.2024 for seeking condonation of delay, in refiling the appeal. 9.2. All these facts have been highlighted to show that there was gross negligence coupled with the lack of bonafides, on the part of the applicant. 9.3. According to the non-applicant, the vested rights of the non-applicant, which have accrued in his favour could not be 6. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) defeated, on the basis of vague averments, as made in the application. 9.4. Another preliminary objection has been taken that when, the certified copy of the judgment was made available on 03.11.2023, then, there is no explanation, why the appeal was not filed immediately. 9.5. On merits, factual position, as asserted in the application has also been controverted. 9.6. Similarly, Cr.MP No. 3704 of 2024 has been contested by filing the reply to the same in which, the reasons for delay in refiling have been contested, on the ground that the upper limitation provided for removal of objections, as per High Court of Himachal Pradesh High Court (Scrutiny, Maintenance of Judicial Records, Administrative and Executive Business) Rules, 1997 is six weeks, whereas, in the application, no plausible explanation has been pleaded, in support of condonation of delay, in refiling the appeal. 9.7. Not only this, according to the non-applicant, there is no explanation to justify the delay between 21.03.2024 to 29.07.2024. 7. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 9.8. Reasserting the gross negligence and inaction on the part of the applicant, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. 10. By moving, Cr.MP No.2779 of 2025, counter affidavit has been filed, in response to reply filed by the non-applicant, Dharam Chand. In the said application, it has been mentioned that for condonation of delay, certain facts, which could not be mentioned, while, refiling the same and raised by the non- applicant in his reply. As such, by way of this application, explanation qua, the delay between 21.03.2024 to 29.07.2024. is stated to be necessary, to be placed on record, for proper adjudication. 11. Along with Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024, another Cr.MP No.3705 of 2024 has also been filed, seeking the exemption from filing the certified copy of judgment dated 18.05.2023. In the said application, it has been pleaded that the Home Department, has been requested to send one more certified copy of judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which will take some more time, therefore, exemption has been sought. 12. Although, while, deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court has to adopt a liberal 8. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) approach, but, this does not mean that anything, which has been pleaded for exemption of delay could be accepted, as a gospel truth, as with the expiry of limitation to assail the judgment of conviction, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent/non-applicant and such right, cannot be snatched away from him, merely adopting a liberal approach. 13. A party, which is seeking indulgence of this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal, must come to the Court with clean hands and at least, put forward a plausible explanation, which should appeal to the judicial conscience of the Court. 14. In the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024, in para-2, it has been submitted that the copy of judgment was examined by the District Attorney and thereafter, District Magistrate, Kullu, sent the same to the Principal Secretary (Home), for taking final decision. Meaning thereby, the certified copy of judgment passed by the learned trial Court was with the applicant, that’s why the same has been sent to Principal Secretary (Home), by District Magistrate, Kullu, for taking the final decision to assail the same before this Court. 9. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 15. In the accompanying application, bearing Cr.MP No.3705 of 2024, a strange plea has been taken that another appeal has been filed against the acquittal and certified copy of judgment has been annexed with the appeal. This material fact could have been mentioned, in the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, there is no whisper in the application bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1986 of 2024, that the certified copy of the judgment was annexed with the other appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 16. Similarly, explanation, which has been pleaded in Cr.MP No.3704 of 2024, qua condonation of delay in refiling the criminal appeal is concerned, without any documentary proof, the factual position pleaded for condonation of delay in refiling cannot be accepted, as a gospel truth, as the copy of the judgment, which has been annexed with the application, was applied on 31.10.2023. Whereas, objection was raised by the Registry, as per the application bearing Cr.MP No.3704 of 2024 on 15.03.2024, which was received on 19.03.2024. Almost, the certified copy of the judgment was obtained, after 7 months and 15 days from the date of application i.e. on 31.10.2023. 10. ( 2025:HHC:29469 ) 17. The copy was delivered on 03.11.2023 and the application for condonation of delay in refiling was filed on 09.08.2024 and the application bears the date, as 29.07.2024. 18. If such type of plea is accepted, then, there would be no end to the litigation, as in every case, the State, which is also liable to be treated, as ordinary litigant, before the Court, would approach to the Court with such type of explanation. 19. Considering all these facts, the contradictory stand, as taken in the different applications, as referred to above, as well as, the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not able to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court to condone the delay in refiling the appeal, as well as, in filing the appeal. 20. Consequently, both these applications are accordingly dismissed, for the reasons, as stated above, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge August 30, 2025 (subhash)