Amit Diwan Vs. Amarjeet @ Aman Cr. MP(M) No. 889 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.7.2026 29.7.2026 Present: Mr Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr R.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.7-State. Cr. MP(M) No. 889 of 2025 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant/appellant was told that the State would prosecute the matter on his behalf. He was not informed of the passing of the judgment. He was told by his friend in March, 2025 that the accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The applicant made inquiries and found that the accused were acquitted and the State had decided not to file any appeal against the acquittal. The applicant sought legal opinion and filed the present appeal. The delay occurred because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the applicant. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by the State by filing a reply taking a preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the State intended to prefer an appeal against the acquittal. However, the proposal to file an appeal was not found fit by the State Government. The applicant has failed to explain the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. A separate reply was filed on behalf of the accused, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the applicant used to follow the matter on every date of hearing. He had himself talked to the Public Prosecutor. He was present on the date of the judgment and was apprised by the learned Public Prosecutor about the decision of the case. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. 5. Since there was a dispute regarding the fact whether the applicant was informed about the decision of the case or not, the report of the police was called, and SHO Police Station, Mcleodganj submitted a report that the applicant was not informed about the acquittal of the accused. 6. I have heard Mr Harsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr R. S. Jaswal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 7/State. 7. Mr Harsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was not aware of the acquittal of the accused. He immediately took steps to file the appeal after he was informed about the acquittal. The applicant had a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 8. Mr R.S. Jaswal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6, submitted that the applicant remained present during the hearing of the case. He was present on the date of the judgment, and the plea taken by him that he was not informed of the acquittal is not correct. The applicant was not vigilant. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.7/State submitted that the applicant was not informed about the date of hearing by the police or the prosecution. He prayed that an appropriate order be passed in the present case. 10. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 11. The applicant asserted on affidavit that he was not informed about the acquittal of the accused. This fact is duly corroborated by the report submitted by the police in which it was stated that the applicant was not informed of the acquittal of the accused. The applicant has also filed an affidavit of Mr Upsam Chauhan, who stated that he had informed the applicant about the acquittal of the accused in the month of March. Therefore, the plea of the applicant that he was not aware of the decision of the case has to be accepted as correct. 12. The copy of the judgment does not mark the applicant’s attendance. The copies of the order sheets were not filed to demonstrate that the applicant used to be present during the hearing of the case. The best proof of attendance in the Court is the copy of the order sheets in which attendance is marked. Therefore, the plea of the respondents regarding the presence of the applicant cannot be accepted in the absence of the order sheets. 13. In view of the above, the plea of the applicant that he was not aware of the acquittal of the accused has to be accepted as correct. The applicant could not have filed the appeal within the limitation, and the applicant had a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 14. Present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (ST) No. 3139 of 2025 15. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 889 of 2025. The appeal be registered. 16. Copy of the appeal be supplied to the respondents. 17. The respondents No.1 to 6/accused shall furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case the appeal is allowed. 18. The bail bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court for record. 19. The record be requisitioned, and the matter be listed thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 29th July, 2026 (Chander)