State of H.P. Vs. Sanvoo Ram & connected matter Cr. MP(M) No. 1499 of 2025 a/w Cr. MP(M) No. 472 of 2025 15.9.2025 Present: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for the applicant/State, in both the applications. Ms. Ekta Kumari, Advocate, for respondent/non-applicant in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1499 of 2025 and Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for the respondent/non-applicant in Cr.MP(M) No. 472 of 2025. Both the applications are being disposed of by a common order, as these applications have been filed, by the applicant/State to condone the delay in filing the accompanying Cr. Appeals, against the common judgment dated 15.6.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellant Court’), in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2023, titled as, ‘Savnoo Ram versus State of H.P.’, and Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2023, titled as, ‘Amar Singh versus State of H.P.’ 2. By way of these applications, indulgence of this Court has been sought to permit the applicant/State to file appeal, against the aforesaid judgment, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, as the learned First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction, dated 30.6.2023 and order of sentence, dated 1.9.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Cr. Case No. 49/2 of 2019/13, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Savnoo Ram & anr.’ 3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction, dated 30.6.2023 has convicted both the respondents/non-applicants, for the offence, punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B, read with Section 34 IPC and, vide of order of sentence, dated 1.9.2023, has sentenced them, in the following manner: Sr. No. Offence Sentence Default sentence 1. 420 IPC Three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- 10 days 2. 120-B IPC Six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- 10 days. 4. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Since, applications seeking leave to appeal are barred by limitation, as such, present applications, for condonation of delay, have been filed. 6. As per report of the Registry, there is delay of 44 days in filing Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1499 of 2025 and 45 days in filing Cr.M.P. (M) No. 472 of 2025. 7. Delay has mainly been sought to be condoned on the ground that after passing of the judgment by the learned Appellate Court, by virtue of which, non- applicants were acquitted, the matter has been dealt with, by the Principal Secretary (Home).Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Law Department, seeking opinion and after receiving the opinion, the present applications have been filed. The applications are duly supported by the affidavits of Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), to the Govt. of H.P. 8. When, put to notice, the applications have been contested by the non-applicants, mainly on the ground that no plausible explanation has been put forward by the applicant/State, for condonation of delay. 9. In a nut-shell, it is the stand of the non- applicants that after passing of the judgment of acquittal, and after lapse of prescribed period of limitation, a valuable right has been accrued, in favour of the non-applicants, and the said right cannot be taken away. 10. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel for the non-applicants have prayed that applications san merit and the same may kindly be dismissed. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced both the non-applicants, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, and in appeal, both the non-applicants were acquitted by the learned First Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that applicant/State is impersonal identity and application for condonation of delay has to be dealt with, at various levels, before taking decision to assail the judgment of acquittal. Moreover, the matter should be decided on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, read with the fact that while deciding the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt liberal approach, and the same should be decided on merit, and not on the basis of technicalities, delay in filing the present applications, is ordered to be condoned. 14. In view of above, the applications are allowed and the same are disposed of, as such. Cr. M.P.ST No. 5478 of 2025 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1499 of 2025 and Cr. M.P. ST No. 1200 of 2025 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 472 of 2025 15. Considering the factual position, as mentioned in the applications, requisite leave to appeal, is accorded, in favour of the applicant/State. 16. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. Cr. Appeal Nos. __________ 17. Be registered 18. Admit. 19. Record of learned trial Court, as well as, learned First Appellate Court, be requisitioned, so as to reach within four weeks. 20. Respondents, through their respective counsel, are directed to furnish bail bonds, in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each, with one surety, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Serving constable, with a solemn undertaking to surrender before this Court, or before the learned trial Court, in case of ultimate acceptance of the appeals, before this Court. Needful be done, within four weeks. (Virender Singh) Judge September 15, 2025 (kalpana)