HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1113 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. This appeal has been filed beyond time by 158 days to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2025 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, court no.14, Aligarh in S.T. No. 1500964/2013, titled State of U.P. Vs. Sundar @ Deva Jaat, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 412 IPC, who has been sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. one lac, and further in the event of non- deposit of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period six months The applicant-convict was prosecuted through Case Crime No.333 of 2013, under Sections 395, 342, 412 IPC, registered at Police Station- Iglas, District- Aligarh. Mr. Suresh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already undergone a period of twelve years and after completion of sentence, he stands released from the prison. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph nos.6, 7 and 8 in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking suspension of sentence. The said paragraphs read as under: "6. That appellant had been languishing in jail about 12 years, while convicting the appellant U/s 412 I.P.C. sentencing for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100000/- and in default of payment of fine he will undergo for six months additional imprisonment. 7. That appellant was released on bail in the present case by the Superintendent of Police District Jail, Aligarh after depositing the amount of rupees one lakh in favour of the Presiding Officer/District and Session Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Niharika Singh Parihar, Suresh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sundar @ Deva Jaat .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) Judge, Court No.14, District Aligarh on dated 11.03.2025. The copy of the payment receipt amount of Rs. one lakh dated 11.03.2025 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit. 8. That the appellant was bailed out in the present case on dated 11.03.2025 after languishing in jail for about 12 years." The above stand of the appellant- convict reveals that he was released from the prison on 11th March, 2025, but he has chosen to file the appeal on 10th September, 2025 and the application seeking condonation of delay is absolutely silent about the sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. M/S MSN Woodtech, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 889 has held that in the absence of any sufficient explanation, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under :- "6. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons needs interference. From a purely legal point of view where facts are admitted that the complaint was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute, there cannot be an automatic or presumed condonation. In the present case, the respondent is on a weaker wicket for the reason, that the Trial Court proceeds on an erroneous presumption and notes that the complaint was filed within the limitation period. Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the power under Section 142 of the Act exists for the Court to condone delay, the first requirement is that the Court has to take note of the fact that there is a delay and thereafter it had to go on the point whether the reasons which have been furnished by the complainant are sufficient to condone such delay and only then move on to take cognizance and proceed for issuing of summons. 7. In the present case, the same has absolutely not been done. The High Court opining that though there may have been delay but still the Trial Court is well within its power to condone the delay and in terms of Section 142(b) of the Act, filing of an application for condonation of delay is not a statutory mandate, again in our considered view, is erroneous. 8. Once the statute prescribes a mandatory time limit for filing a complaint, there cannot be any deviation from the same except when an application accompanying the complaint is filed seeking condonation disclosing reasons CRLAD No. 1113 of 2025 2 for the delay and even then it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take note of such filing beyond limitation and to consider the reasons disclosed independently and to come to a judicious conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of that case condonation is justified. The same not having been done, the order cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the order issuing summons to the appellants by the Trial Court as upheld by the High Court is set aside. In the result, the complaint itself stands quashed. The appeal stands allowed." Thus, keeping in view the above background of the case, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal also fails. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) September 16, 2025 Raj CRLAD No. 1113 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad