[2026:RJ-JP:6689]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 815/2025 Mordhwaj Meena Son Of Late Shri Phool Singh Meena, Resident Of Rambas Tehsil Govindgarh District Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakar, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

12/02/2026 :

Instant revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dt.29.01.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Weir, District Bharatpur, in Criminal Appeal No.61/2021 (17/18) 28/16), whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to continue the aforesaid appeal filed by his father, namely Phool Chand (the original accused) who died during the pendency of the said appeal, was dismissed.

The submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner's father - Phool Chand (the original accused) was convicted by the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Weir, District Bharatpur, vide judgment dated 18.03.2016 against which the original accused preferred an appeal bearing No.61/2021 (17/18)(28/16) titled as Phool Singh Vs. State. During the pendency of the said appeal, the original accused expired on 05.03.2023 and thereafter, the present petitioner, being a legal heir of the original accused, preferred an application before the ld. Appellate Court seeking permission to continue the appeal on 24.05.2023. The ld. Appellate Court vide its order dt.29.01.2025 dismissed the said application on the ground that it was time-barred. Therefore, it is prayed that the present revision petition may be allowed, and while setting aside the impugned order dt.24.05.2023 the petitioner be permitted to continue the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present revision petition & prayed for dismissal of the revision petition while maintaining the order passed by the ld. Appellate Court.

Heard. Perused.

From perusal of the order dt.29.01.2025, it is apparent that the application seeking permission to continue the appeal was filed by the petitioner with the delay of 79 days, whereas as per the provisions of law, the limitation was only 30 days.

It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner has not preferred any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the ld. Appellate Court.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case & the submissions made at bar, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order dt.29.01.2025, and permit the petitioner to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in support of his application under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to continue the appeal.

Consequently, the present revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dt.29.01.2025 is, hereby, quashed & set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the ld. Appellate Court. The petitioner is directed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in support of his application under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. The ld. Appellate Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties without being influenced by any of our observations.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK