The court confirmed that being in jail constitutes sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.

1. This directed against the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in unregistered Criminal Appeal, by which, criminal appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: -
(2.1)Applicant - Mohan Rao was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagdalpur in Criminal Case No. 15/2007 for the commission of offence punishable under S.392 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'IPC? ) on 27.08.2007.
(2.2) The applicant preferred appeal there against before the Court of Session on 7.2.2008 along with application under S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
(2.3) By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal finding no sufficient cause has been shown for delay by the applicant and consequently dismissed the appeal also. Against this judgment, the instant revision has been filed.

3. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that learned Sessions Judge has committed illegality in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown in filing the appeal as the applicant was in jail on the date of judgment passed by trial Magistrate and copy of judgment delivered to his wife was got misplaced and, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the appellate Court for deciding the appeal on its own merits.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the order impugned.

5. It is an admitted position on record that the applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagdalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2007 for offence under S.392 IPC on
27.08.2007 and the applicant was in jail at the time of passing of judgment of conviction by the trial Magistrate; and the copy of the judgment was delivered to his wife Smt. Anjali Rao; and the appeal was preferred on 07.02.2008 with the delay of five months & four days.

6. The question for consideration is whether the cause assigned for delay in filing the appeal is sufficient or not.

7. S.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: -
'5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation. - The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.'

8. It is trite law that the approach of court should be liberal while dealing with application for condonation of delay.

9. In Krishna Daji Kalap and others v. State of Maharashtra 1968 ACC 366, where the appellants therein were convicted and sentenced of serious offence and were detained in jail, their statutory criminal appeal was dismissed by the High Court by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, condoning the delay in filing the appeal held as under: -
'2. ..................However having regard to the circumstances and especially the fact that the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for a very serious offence, this is a case in which a somewhat lenient view may be taken and the right of appeal on the merits may be permitted to be exercised by them even though the memo or appeal was not filed within the time