Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J
Shanti Devi – Appellant
Versus
Gulshan & others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay requires a reasonable explanation. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented on procedural error and the need for liberal consideration. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations emphasize the significance of a substantiated explanation for delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 4. final ruling on dismissing the appeal following the application. (Para 8 , 9) |
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
CRM-23689-2025
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2500 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 03.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant-appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.06.2016 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat whereby respondents (herein) were acquitted from the charges framed against them for the offences under Sections 494, 114 and 34 IPC. The applicant-appellant, by way of instant appeal, impugns the abovesaid two judgments to the extent of acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 114 and 34 IPC.
2. Learned
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
