Om Prakash v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

First Appeal No.246 of 2013 ====================================================== Om Prakash .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate For the Respondent/s For the State : Mr. Asif Kalin, Act. AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

I.A. No. 7100 of 2013 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

The office is reported that the present appeal is barred by limitation of three years.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact, after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, the appellant fell ill and subsequently, he regained his health but on a wrong advice he started knocking the door of other forum for getting justice. Subsequently, he was advised to file appeal against the impugned judgment and, thereafter, the appellant has filed this appeal.

But I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention because admittedly, the impugned judgment was passed on

Patna High Court FA No.246 of 2013 (9) dt.21-08-2017 2/2 26.06.2010 and the present appeal was filed on 25.09.2013. Moreover, in I.A. No. 7100 of 2013 nothing has been stated by the appellant as to when he got knowledge of the impugned judgment and on which period he fell ill and regained his health, further, the appellant has not even whispered in the aforesaid petitioner as to which forum he knocked for setting aside the impugned judgment. Therefore, in my view, the appellant has not given satisfactory explanation of delay.

Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed being time barred.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) khushbu/- U