Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank versus Roshan Lal & Another Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 21.07.2025 Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General,for respondent No.2. Cr.MP(M) No.1264 of 2025 By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal. The accompanying appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5.12.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Court), in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2023, titled as Roshan Lal versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Another. Vide judgment dated 5.12.2023, learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Roshan Lal, against the judgment of conviction, dated 15.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 02.05.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Case No.165 of 2018, titled The Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Versus Roshan Lal and acquitted the respondent from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since, the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed. The delay has been sought to be condoned mainly, on the ground that earlier the applicant has preferred Criminal Revision No.94 of 2025, before this Court, whereas, the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is to be assailed by filing the appeal. As such, the said revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.03.2025. On the basis of the above facts, delay has been sought to be condoned. When put to notice, reply has been filed by the respondents denying all the factual position and it has been prayed that no plausible explanation has been put forward to condone the delay, hence a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. Heard. This fact has not been admitted, in this case that the applicant had earlier filed the revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.94 of 2025. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.03.2025. Copy of the order dated 18.03.2025, has been annexed with the application. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, neither any negligence nor any inaction has been attributed against the applicant. It is no longer res integra that liberal approach has to be adopted by the Court, so that the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of the technicalities. Considering the said stand, the application under consideration is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. CRMPMST/2614/25 By way of the present application, the applicant, who is complainant, in this case, has sought the indulgence of this Court to grant leave to appeal. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1868-1870 of 2025, titled as Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran & Others, there is no legal requirement to seek leave to appeal. As such, the present application is disposed of. Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 Be registered. Before proceeding further, authorized representative of the appellant, as well as, respondent No.1, through their counsel, are directed to remain present before this Court, on the next date of hearing. List on 1st September, 2025. (Virender Singh) Judge July 21, 2025 (ps)