Chaman Lal Vs. State of H.P. Cr.MP(M) No.440 of 2025 19.03.2025 Present: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Mr. Ranjna Patial, learned Deputy Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent/State. 2. Applicant-Chaman Lal has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 4. Since, the Criminal Appeal has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 5. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the appeal could not be filed due to the fact that after passing of the judgment by the learned trial Court, applicant was busy with his medical and family problems. As such, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. When, put to notice, respondent/State has filed the reply to the application, denying the factual position, as mentioned in the application and a specific stand has been taken that no reasonable explanation has been given in the application for condonation of delay. 7. Heard. 8. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. There is nothing in the reply, which would demonstrate about the motive/object, which the applicant would achieve in not preferring the Criminal Appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation, had he not been prevented to do so, for the reasons, as mentioned, in the application. 9. Even otherwise, while deciding the present application, in such a matter, where the rigorous imprisonment has been inflicted upon the applicant, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 10. Consequently, the present application is allowed and the delay of 333 days in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal is ordered to be condoned. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No._______ of 2025 Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.440 of 2025, the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal has been ordered to be condoned. Be registered. Admit. Call for the records. March 19, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Gaurav Thakur) Judge