CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 112 Pardeep Baghel State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. CRM-6471 filing the present revision petition. the aforesaid delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned. 2. CRR-282 dated 18.09.2023 Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentencing to the period already undergone by him, had been dismissed. 3. present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pardeep Baghel Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 6471-2024 Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 50 days in filing the present revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the aforesaid delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned. 282-2024 (O&M) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana holding him guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentencing to the period already undergone by him, had been dismissed. Brief facts of the case relevant for th present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 50 days in For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the aforesaid delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned. petition has been filed against the judgment , passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2019, passed by First Class, Ludhiana holding him guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentencing to the period already undergone by him, had Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondent Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 50 days in For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the aforesaid delay in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned. petition has been filed against the judgment , passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2019, passed by First Class, Ludhiana holding him guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentencing to the period already undergone by him, had e purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) allegations that in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, he had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and ha damaged the door and other articles of the house. investigation proceedings were initiated. police on the identification of one Deepak Singh Sood. necessary investigation a was presented in the Court against the petitioner. 4. petitioner free of cost. On finding a Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 427 of 506 of IPC against the petitioner, he was chargesheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5. besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was closed by order. 6. Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and took a plea that he had bee implicated. No defence witness was examined. 7. the contentions as raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence d accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC and while observing that the petitioner was not entitled for probation, sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. F aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) allegations that in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, he had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and ha damaged the door and other articles of the house. investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested by the police on the identification of one Deepak Singh Sood. necessary investigation and usual formalities, was presented in the Court against the petitioner. Copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the petitioner free of cost. On finding a prima facie Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 427 of 506 of IPC against the petitioner, he was chargesheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. To substantiate its case, the prosec besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was closed by order. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and took a plea that he had bee implicated. No defence witness was examined. After appraising the evidence produced on record and considering the contentions as raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence d accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC and while observing that the petitioner was not entitled for probation, sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. F aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, -2- allegations that in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, he had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and ha damaged the door and other articles of the house. After registration of FIR, The petitioner was arrested by the police on the identification of one Deepak Singh Sood. After completion of nd usual formalities, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the petitioner. and other documents were supplied to the prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 427 of 506 of IPC against the petitioner, he was chargesheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. After appraising the evidence produced on record and considering the contentions as raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 19.10.2019, held the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC and while observing that the petitioner was not entitled for probation, sentenced him to the period already undergone by him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, allegations that in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, he had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and had After registration of FIR, The petitioner was arrested by the After completion of under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and other documents were supplied to the case for framing charges under Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 427 of 506 of IPC against the petitioner, he was chargesheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the ution examined 05 witnesses besides relying upon documentary evidence and thereafter, its evidence was Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of n falsely After appraising the evidence produced on record and considering the contentions as raised by both the sides, the learned trial Court, vide judgment ated 19.10.2019, held the accused guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC and while observing that the petitioner was not entitled eeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) which too had been dismissed on the grounds of limitation, vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023. 8. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the passed by the not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. had wrongl punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC. In fact the ingredients for commission of either of these offences had not been made out even from the allegations in the FIR and also on the basis of the evide produced on record before the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the appellate Court, sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is totally non The appeal o on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, had been dismissed only on the grounds of delay by observing that he had failed to explain such delay in filing the appeal. the delay occurred in filing the appeal with sufficient cause but the same had been ignored and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on technicalities impugned judgment the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges framed against him. 9. there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments as they have been passed by the Courts below on correct appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record. Hence, CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) which too had been dismissed on the grounds of limitation, vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner o grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. had wrongly held that the petitioner was punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC. In fact the ingredients for commission of either of these offences had not been made out even from the allegations in the FIR and also on the basis of the evide produced on record before the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the appellate Court, sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is totally non The appeal of the petitioner, filed against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, had been dismissed only on the grounds of delay by observing that he had failed to explain such delay in filing the appeal. It is argued that the petitioner had properly explained the delay occurred in filing the appeal with sufficient cause but the same had been ignored and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on technicalities. Hence, it is urged that the petition des impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges framed against him. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments as they have been passed by the Courts below on correct appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record. Hence, she has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. -3- which too had been dismissed on the grounds of limitation, vide impugned petition has been filed by the petitioner o grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the impugned judgment Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. The learned trial Court was guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC. In fact the ingredients for commission of either of these offences had not been made out even from the allegations in the FIR and also on the basis of the evide produced on record before the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the appellate Court, is also sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is totally non-speaking and cryptic. f the petitioner, filed against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, had been dismissed only on the grounds of delay by observing that he had failed to explain such argued that the petitioner had properly explained the delay occurred in filing the appeal with sufficient cause but the same had been ignored and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on petition deserves to be accepted, the s passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges framed against him. Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has argued that no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments as they have been passed by the Courts below on correct appreciation of facts and evidence he has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. which too had been dismissed on the grounds of limitation, vide impugned n the impugned judgments as Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are The learned trial Court guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC. In fact the ingredients for commission of either of these offences had not been made out even from the allegations in the FIR and also on the basis of the evidence produced on record before the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the also not speaking and cryptic. f the petitioner, filed against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, had been dismissed only on the grounds of delay by observing that he had failed to explain such argued that the petitioner had properly explained the delay occurred in filing the appeal with sufficient cause but the same had been ignored and the appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on mere erves to be accepted, the s passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and has argued that no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments as they have been passed by the Courts below on correct appreciation of facts and evidence he has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) 10. and have also gone through the material placed on record very carefully. 11. the petitioner had attempted to commit theft in the house of Judge, Ludhiana and had damaged the door and other articles of the house. evident from the record, he had been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC by the learned trial Court and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence. from the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate Court but the same had been dismissed onl merits of the appeal. by the learned trial Court. The copy of the judgment was delivered to the petitioner on 05.11.2019. However, the appeal was filed petitioner had taken a plea that he was serving in BSF and since after pronouncement of judgment of conviction, his employer had allowed him to continue in service, he did not file any appeal but subsequently, on 21.04.2020, he was term 19.10.2019 as conviction. 12. 21.04.2020 and against his conv Covid-19, hence passed by the learned appellate Court revels that these facts have been taken into consideration but it was foun CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record very carefully. As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, the petitioner had attempted to commit theft in the house of Judge, Ludhiana and had damaged the door and other articles of the house. evident from the record, he had been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC by the learned ourt and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence. from the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate Court but the same had been dismissed only on the ground of delay, without going into the merits of the appeal. The judgment of conviction was pronounced on 19.10.2019 by the learned trial Court. The copy of the judgment was delivered to the petitioner on 05.11.2019. However, the appeal was filed petitioner had taken a plea that he was serving in BSF and since after pronouncement of judgment of conviction, his employer had allowed him to continue in service, he did not file any appeal but subsequently, on 21.04.2020, he was terminated from service considering the impugned judgment dat 19.10.2019 as conviction. It is argued that when the petitioner was terminated from service on 21.04.2020 and only then he came to know that in fact he should file an appeal t his conviction but since there was pan 19, hence, he could not file the same in time. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court revels that these facts have been taken into consideration but it was found that still the delay of 04 months and 09 days had -4- sel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record very carefully. As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, the petitioner had attempted to commit theft in the house of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and had damaged the door and other articles of the house. evident from the record, he had been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC by the learned ourt and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate Court but y on the ground of delay, without going into the The judgment of conviction was pronounced on 19.10.2019 by the learned trial Court. The copy of the judgment was delivered to the petitioner on 05.11.2019. However, the appeal was filed on 06.01.2021. petitioner had taken a plea that he was serving in BSF and since after pronouncement of judgment of conviction, his employer had allowed him to continue in service, he did not file any appeal but subsequently, on 21.04.2020, ering the impugned judgment dat It is argued that when the petitioner was terminated from service on he came to know that in fact he should file an appeal there was pan India lockdown due to outbreak of , he could not file the same in time. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court revels that these facts have been taken into d that still the delay of 04 months and 09 days had sel for the parties at considerable length As per prosecution case, in the intervening night of 23/24.03.2018, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and had damaged the door and other articles of the house. As evident from the record, he had been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 380 read with 511 of IPC by the learned ourt and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him, vide Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate Court but y on the ground of delay, without going into the The judgment of conviction was pronounced on 19.10.2019 by the learned trial Court. The copy of the judgment was delivered to the on 06.01.2021. The petitioner had taken a plea that he was serving in BSF and since after pronouncement of judgment of conviction, his employer had allowed him to continue in service, he did not file any appeal but subsequently, on 21.04.2020, ering the impugned judgment dated It is argued that when the petitioner was terminated from service on he came to know that in fact he should file an appeal own due to outbreak of , he could not file the same in time. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court revels that these facts have been taken into d that still the delay of 04 months and 09 days had MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) not been explained by the petitioner and it was appeal was dismissed. 13. is as to whether the appellate petitioner only on the grounds of delay? exercising discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Union of India and another various pronouncements and looked into the approaches adopted by the Court and it was ultimately held that to condone the delay Courts. 14. Mahindra Co. Ltd. : observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 of the Constitution of India 15. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2) held that where the appellant furnishes reasons for Court would not dismiss the appeal as time reasons for the delay. 16. appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) not been explained by the petitioner and it was appeal was dismissed. The primary question that arises before this Court for consideration is as to whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner only on the grounds of delay? While discussing the parameters for exercising discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Union of India and another : (2023) 10 SCC 531 various pronouncements and looked into the approaches adopted by the Court ultimately held that as per its judicial pronouncements, the to condone the delay calls for a liberal and justice Reliance can also be placed upon Mahindra Co. Ltd. : (2007) 6 SCC 528, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. as the right of appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of of the Constitution of India is also a Reference can also be made to the authority cited as tate of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2), where the appellant furnishes reasons for ourt would not dismiss the appeal as time reasons for the delay. In view of above cited authorities, appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a -5- not been explained by the petitioner and it was only on that ground that the The primary question that arises before this Court for consideration Court was justified in dismissing the appeal of the While discussing the parameters for exercising discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. (2023) 10 SCC 531 considered and discussed its various pronouncements and looked into the approaches adopted by the Court as per its judicial pronouncements, the discretion for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Reliance can also be placed upon Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under ppeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of is also a fundamental right. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as Rajendra v , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has where the appellant furnishes reasons for delay in filing an appeal, the ourt would not dismiss the appeal as time-barred without examining the In view of above cited authorities, it is evident that the right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a on that ground that the The primary question that arises before this Court for consideration Court was justified in dismissing the appeal of the While discussing the parameters for exercising discretion by the Courts in condoning delay, the Supreme Court in Representatives and Others vs. considered and discussed its various pronouncements and looked into the approaches adopted by the Court scretion oriented approach by the s. Kotak wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the right of appeal which is provided for under ppeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Rajendra vs. wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has delay in filing an appeal, the barred without examining the it is evident that the right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The order dismissing the appeal solely reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration. explained the reasons like unawareness of impact of reduction in sent imposition of nationwide outbreak of Covid appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on mere technicality that some portion of delay was not properly explained. to the effect of conviction; he has lost his job, which was the source of his livelihood. appeal to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the ca appropriate to remand the case to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal on its merits. petition is partly by the learned appellate Court, is set aside. The case is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal of the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the said Court on 22.04.2025. 21.03.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRR No. 282 of 2024 (O&M) fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration. explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal by giving sufficient cause like unawareness of impact of reduction in sent imposition of nationwide outbreak of Covid appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on mere technicality that some portion of delay was not properly explained. The petitioner was serving in BSF and due to the effect of conviction; he has lost his job, which was the source of his In the opinion of this Court, it is very harsh to deny the right of appeal to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the ca appropriate to remand the case to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal on its merits. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the present partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.09.20 by the learned appellate Court, is set aside. The case is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal of the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the on 22.04.2025. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -6- fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The appellate Court's due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay, therefore, warrants reconsideration. The petitioner has for the delay in filing the appeal by giving sufficient cause like unawareness of impact of reduction in sentence instead of his acquittal and imposition of nationwide outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. However, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on mere technicality that some portion The petitioner was serving in BSF and due to the effect of conviction; he has lost his job, which was the source of his In the opinion of this Court, it is very harsh to deny the right of appeal to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the case and it is considered appropriate to remand the case to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the present allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2023, passed by the learned appellate Court, is set aside. The case is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal of the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Court's due to delay, without properly examining the petitioner has for the delay in filing the appeal by giving sufficient cause ence instead of his acquittal and 19 pandemic. However, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on mere technicality that some portion The petitioner was serving in BSF and due to the effect of conviction; he has lost his job, which was the source of his In the opinion of this Court, it is very harsh to deny the right of se and it is considered appropriate to remand the case to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the present 23, passed by the learned appellate Court, is set aside. The case is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal of the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 09:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document