JUDGMENT :

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

None appears for the appellant-applicant when the matter is called for.

2. Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned senior Government advocate appearing for the State authorities. We have also requested the assistance of Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel who was present in the court and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel on the issue.

3. The appellant was convicted under section 302/436, IPC as per the judgment and order dated 2.9.2014 of the learned Sessions Court, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Sessions Case No. 132/2010 and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 for the offence under section 436 of the IPC.

4. Consequent to such conviction and sentence, the appellant was taken into custody and is presently undergoing the sentences. The appellant preferred the connected criminal appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence under section 302/436. As there is delay in preferring the criminal appeal, the interlocutory application is filed for condoning of delay of 1,281 days for filing the appeal.

5. In paragraph 5 of the application of condonation of delay against the appeal, the appellant states that he was not aware of the fact that against the conviction an appeal would not placed before the High Court. As the aforesaid averment in paragraph 5 in the Interlocutory Application has not been opposed by the State authorities, the only way we can understand is that the appellant was either he was not informed by the Superintendent of Jail about his right to file an appeal or if informed and the consent was given, still the appeal was not placed before the High Court.

6. We have also taken note of the provisions of clause 16.22 of the Arunachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2017. The Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the case of Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1977 SC 1739, had provided for having an uniform law relating to the prisons and accordingly directed that a new all India Jail Manual be prepared. The Arunachal Pradesh Prison Manual 2017, prepared pursuant to the aforesaid requirement as well as, as per the recommendation of the expert committee constituted upon the direction of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013 titled Re : Inhuman Conditions prevailing in 1382 prisons in India.

7. Clause 16.22 of the Arunachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2017 is quoted as follows:

“The Superintendent should inform convicts of their right of appeal against conviction.”

8. As Clause 16.22 clearly provides that it is the requirement that the Superintendent of Jail shall inform the convicts of their right to appeal against the conviction and the said provision having been incorporated in the Arunachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2017, which is an outcome of the direction of the Supreme Court as indicated above, we are of the view that requirement to inform the convicts about their right of appeal against the conviction is a mandatory requirement.

9. Such requirement in our view also satisfies the requirement of article 21 of the Constitution of India an interpreted by the Supreme Court which provides that a person may be deprived of his liberty only in accordance to the procedure established by law and such deprivation of personal liberty can be made only upon a strict and scrupulous observation of all the forms and rules of the law.

10. In this respect the Supreme Court has held as follows:

(i) In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Deihi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 in paragraph 4 it was held that:

“The position now is that article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi case requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law……”

(ii) In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chalk Ramkrishna Reddy, (2000) 5 SCC 712 in