Hari Singh v. State of H.P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jun 2025
- Bench
- VIRENDER SINGH
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 20, 20(b)(ii)(A)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1313. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal is ordered to be condoned.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge This order of mine shall dispose of an application, filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), by applicant-Hari Singh, with a prayer to condone the delay, in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal.
Applicant-Hari Singh has filed the accompanying Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. order of sentence dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Court of 2 learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in case No.79(141)/2021, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Hari Singh’, arising out of FIR No.175/2021, dated 11.07.2021, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), with Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.
Vide judgment of conviction dated 08.05.2024, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence, punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and while passing the order of sentence dated
08.05.2024, considering the detention period of applicant, the same has been ordered to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed. Since, the applicant had already undergone much more sentence, than could be inflicted upon him, therefore, he has been ordered to be released.
Since, the accompanying appeal has been preferred, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been moved, under Section 5 of 3 the Act. As per the office report, there is 276 days’ delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
The reasons for delay have been pleaded in the application that after the decision by the learned trial Court, the applicant immediately rushed to Nepal to see his family members.
5.1. According to the applicant, he is a rustic villager and as such, he was not aware about the provisions of law and he was under the impression that the case is now over.
5.2. It has been averred in the application that in the month of March, 2025, the applicant again came to India for earning his livelihood and subsequently, contacted his counsel at Kullu, then, he has been guided to file the appeal and thereafter, he has filed the accompanying appeal. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant.
On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application and condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
When put to notice, the application has been 4 contested, by the non-applicant, by taking preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable and the applicant is miserably failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
7.1. In the reply, another objection has been taken that there is no sufficient cause, put forth by the applicant. The factual position, as asserted in the application, has also been disputed/controverted.
On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.
The applicant, in the present case, has been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced for the period, which he had already undergone.
Considering the low legal literacy of the general masses, the explanation, which has been put forward, by the applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court, falls within the definition of ‘sufficient cause’, for not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation.
Even otherwise, in the reply, filed by the non- 5 applicant, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was negligent in filing the accompanying appeal.
Moreover, the general masses are normally banking upon the advice, given to them, by their counsel. As such, the explanation, which has been put forward by the applicant, in the application, seems to be probabilized.
In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal is ordered to be condoned.
Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Appeal No.______ of 2025
Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.911 of 2025, the delay of 276 days in filing the Criminal Appeal has been ordered to be condoned. Be registered. Admit. Call for the records. List as per its turn. June 02, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur) ( Virender Singh ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 20, 20(b)(ii)(A).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 02 Jun 2025. The bench was VIRENDER SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.