Skip to content


Sona Sheikh and ors. Vs. Naib Ali Sheikh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in61Ind.Cas.714
AppellantSona Sheikh and ors.
RespondentNaib Ali Sheikh
Excerpt:
appeal criminal - limitation--last day for filing appeal expiring during vacation--appeal presented on re-opening of court--circumstance justifying admission of appeal after expiry of limitation. - .....began and continued up to the 16th november. for that period two officers were appointed to act as vacation judge, one for the first half of the vacation and another, mr. rajendra narain roy, for the second half of the vacation, beginning from 29th october 1920. the explanation offered by the petitioners of their delay in presenting their petition is that mr. roy, the vacation judge, for the second half of the vacation, did not in fact arrive in mymensingh on the days on which he was respected to sit at the head-quarters of that district, from the papers placed before us it is clear that, as a matter of fast, there was some change in mr. roy's programme, and that though he did, as a matter of fast, sit at the head-quarters of the district of mymensingh on the 8th november, no notice of.....
Judgment:

1. In this case it appears that the petitioners before us were convicted of the offense punishable under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, on the 30th September 1920. The last date for filing their appeal was, therefore, the 6th November, after making allowance for the time required in obtaining copies. As a matter of fact, the appeal was presented in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Mymensingh on the 17th November. On the 11th October the Civil Court vacation began and continued up to the 16th November. For that period two officers were appointed to act as Vacation Judge, one for the first half of the vacation and another, Mr. Rajendra Narain Roy, for the second half of the vacation, beginning from 29th October 1920. The explanation offered by the petitioners of their delay in presenting their petition is that Mr. Roy, the Vacation Judge, for the second half of the vacation, did not in fact arrive in Mymensingh on the days on which he was respected to sit at the head-quarters of that district, From the papers placed before us it is clear that, as a matter of fast, there was some change in Mr. Roy's programme, and that though he did, as a matter of fast, sit at the head-quarters of the District of Mymensingh on the 8th November, no notice of his intention so to do was given before, at the earliest, the 2nd November. We have no information as to where Mr. Roy held his sittings between the 29th October and the 8th November, and, from the application that has been presented to us and from the affidavit sworn in support thereof, it would appear that the petitioners and their legal advisers were equally ignorant. We have no doubt that it was the serious intention of the petitioners and their legal advisers to present the appeal in question and to secure its hearing, and that their failure to present the appeal in time was due to the fact that timely notice was not given of the time and place at whish the Vacation Judge proposed to hold his sitting.

2. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petitioners' appeal should have been admitted and set down for hearing. We now set aside the order made by the Sessions Judge on the 19th November, repeating the appeal as barred by limitation and direst that the appeal be admitted and disposed of in due beurse of law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //