Rampal vs. State of H.P. Cr. MP(M) No.2464 of 2025 11.11.2025 Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent/State. Cr.MP(M) No.2464 of 2025 Applicant-Rampal has preferred the accompanying revision petition, against the judgment dated 22.04.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Cr. Appeal No. 12-G/X/2024, titled as, ‘Rampal versus State of H.P.’ 2. By way of judgment dated 22.04.2025, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2024, and order of sentence dated 18.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Crl. Case Regd. No.20/2015, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Rampal’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction, dated 09.07.2024 and order of sentence, dated 18.11.2024, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 196 of the MV Act, in the following manner:- Sr. No. Sections Sentenced imposed In default 1 382 read with Section 34 of IPC RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- SI for three months 2 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. Fine amount of Rs.1,000/- 4. Since, the revision petition has been filed, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed by the applicant, for condonation of delay, which, as per the report of the Registry, is 156 days. 5. Delay in filing the present revision petition, has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground that in the appeal, the applicant was duly represented by his counsel, however, on the date of hearing, his counsel failed to put appearance. The applicant came to know about the decision of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, when he was arrested on 18.08.2025 in execution of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the applicant has contacted his family members and thereafter, the certified copies of the judgments passed by both the Courts below have been obtained and thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present application. 7. When, put to notice, the respondent-State has filed reply to the application, by denying the factual position. It has been submitted that the applicant has miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the present revision petition. The stand of the applicant, as taken in the application has also been controverted and prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed. 8. Heard. 9. The appeal of the applicant has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2025 and perusal of the same shows that on that day, neither the appellant put appearance nor his counsel was present and the learned Appellate Court has decided the appeal without hearing the appellant and his counsel. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the said ground is sufficient to condone the delay. 11. Consequently, delay in filing the present revision petition is ordered to be condoned. 12. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No. ______of 2025 13. Vide order of even date, passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2464 of 2025, delay in filing the revision petition, has been ordered to be condoned. 14. Be registered. 15. Call for the records. Cr.M.P.ST No.9322 of 2025 16. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the order of sentence dated 18.11.2024, passed by the learned trial Court. 17. The fine amount has already been deposited. 18. Since the revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, will take sufficient long time, for its disposal, as such, the order of sentence dated 18.11.2024, is suspended during the pendency of the revision and the applicant, who is in judicial custody in Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of final dismissal of the revision petition, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence; (iii) That the applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. 19. The application is, thus, disposed of. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing. (Virender Singh) Judge November 11, 2025 (subhash) RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.11.11 17:10:39 +0530