HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1195/2025 Raju Lal Son Of Pappu Lal, Resident Of Umalmal Balaji, Sawai Madhopur Road, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhoupr (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GC-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/10/2025 1. By way of filing this revision petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.47/2025, by which the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli (for short ‘ACJM, Karauli’) has been rejected by treating the same as barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was held guilty by the Court of ACJM, Karauli vide judgment dated 19.02.2025 and he was convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel submits that in terms of Section 389 Cr.P.C., the (2 of 4) [CRLR-1195/2025] sentence of the petitioner was suspended by the Trial Court for a period of 30 days for filing appeal before the Appellate Court. Counsel submits that on account of medical emergency in the family of the petitioner, he went to Bengaluru, hence, the appeal could not be submitted within the above stipulated time and after returning from Bengaluru, the appeal was submitted on 10.06.2025, hence, certain delay has occurred in filing the appeal, for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Counsel submits that without considering the explanation so furnished by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, both the application as well as the appeal have been rejected on a technical count that the appeal was barred by limitation and the appeal was not decided on its merits. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition, thereafter, this Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court vide order dated 14.08.2025. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2025, the petitioner has surrendered himself before the Trial Court on 23.09.2025 and now he is undergoing the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court in the District Jail, Karauli. Counsel submits that the Appellate Court has not decided the appeal of the petitioner on its merits, but has rejected the same on a technical count of being barred by limitation, so a direction be issued to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on (3 of 4) [CRLR-1195/2025] its merits and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be suspended till final disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that against the judgment dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Court of ACJM, Karauli, a time barred appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge on 10.06.2025 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 7. This Court has seen the reasons/explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay and in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons so furnished are satisfactory. The Appellate Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, instead of rejecting the appeal on technical count. 8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karauli stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Court for its hearing on merits. 9. The sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Court. 10. The petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties of (4 of 4) [CRLR-1195/2025] Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifity Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/14