Raman Kumar versus State of H.P. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 19.08.2025 Present: Mr. Vidur, Advocate, vice Mr. Arjun Lall, Legal Aid Counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.MP (M) No.1937 of 2025 Reply not filed. Further adjournment for this purpose is not justifiable, as such, the right to file the reply is ordered to be closed by the order of the Court. 2. Applicant Raman Kumar has preferred the accompanying appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Case No.40 of 2020, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Raman Kumar’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court, has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. Since the accompanying appeal has been preferred, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay, has been moved. 5. As per the report of the Registry, there is 54 days’ delay in filing the accompanying appeal, before this Court. The delay has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground, that after passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the applicant had approached the Legal Services Authority for providing him counsel at State expenses to file the appeal. The legal aid counsel was appointed vide letter dated 03.05.2025. 6. Thereafter, the learned legal aid counsel wrote a letter to Secretary, HPHLSC, Shimla, to obtain certain other necessary documents to draft the appeal, which were not supplied to learned legal aid counsel. Due to the said fact, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 7. The factual position, as mentioned in the application has not been controverted by the learned Additional Advocate General, by filing the reply to the application. When the factual position remains uncontroverted, then, this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for condonation of delay. 8. Even otherwise, the applicant is not going to achieve anything, by not preferring the accompanying appeal within the stipulated period, had he not been prevented to do so, by the reasons, as mentioned in the application. 9. Considering all these facts, the present application is allowed and the delay of 54 days, as occurred in filing the accompanying appeal, is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 Be registered. Admit. (Virender Singh) Judge August 19, 2025 (ps)