ABDUL GHAFOOR & ANR.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

                     [2011] 11 S.C.R. 425


                  ABDUL GHAFOOR & ANR.                           A
                               V.
                       STATE OF BIHAR
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 2011)
                    SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
                                                                 B
   [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

      Limitation - Condonation of delay - Conviction and
• sentence for commission of offence ulss. 323, 447 and 452
  /PC - Revision Petition - Appellant seeking condonation of C
  delay of more than fifteen months - Revision petition
  dismissed by Patna High Court without going into the merits
  of the case as barred by limitation - On appeal held: High
  Court dismissed the appellant's revision quite mechanically
  applying the bar of /imitation and without giving any allowance D
  to the circumstances of the appellants - ·Under the Patna High
  Court Rules, a revision against conviction can be entertained
  only after the revision-petitioner surrenders before the court
  below- Thus, when revision filed by the appellants was taken
  up by the High Court they were· already in jail - In case, the E
  revision was dismissed after consideration on merits, the
  appellants would have continued to remain in jail to serve out
  their sentences - Had the revision been filed in time, they
  would have surrendered 15 months earlier and thus, would
  have completed their sentence 15 months earlier - As such F
  due to the delayed filing of the revision the appellant would
  complete their sentence, in case of dismissal of the revision
  15 months later - Thus, the High Court should have
  condoned the delay in filing the revision by the appellants and
  examined their case on merits - Revision petition is restored G
  to its original file - Patna High Court Rules.

      Administration of criminal justice - Cases of conviction
  and imposition of sentence of imprisonment -' Application of
  Jaw of limitation - Held: In such cases the court must show
                                425                              H
    426      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A far greater indulgence and flexibility in applying the law of
  limitation than in any other kind of case - A sentence of
  imprisonment relates to a person's right to personal liberty
  and, therefore, the court should be very reluctant to shut out
  a consideration of the case on merits on grounds of limitation
s or any other similar technicality.
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1812 of 2011.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2010 of the            •
C High Court of Patna in CRLR No. 1383 of 2010.

          Gaurav Agrawal for the appellants.

        Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad (for Gopal Singh) for the
    Respondent.
0
          The following order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

       1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing
E for the petitioners, and Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
  learned counsel appearing for t.he State of Bihar.

          2. Leave granted.

F      3. The appellants were convicted by the trial Court
  (Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Kishanganj), under Sections
  323, 447 and 452 of the Penal Code and sentenced to two
  years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 of the Penal
  Code; the substantive sentences for the other two offences were
G of lesser periods and all the sentences were directed to run
  concurrently. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the
  judgment and order passed by the trial court was dismissed
  by the Sessions Judge. They approached the High Court in
  Criminal Revision No.1383/2010 but the revision was filed after

H
   ABDUL GHAFOOR & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR                     427


a delay of more than 15 months. The appellants sought                 A
condonation of delay in filing the revision taking plea that they
were working in Delhi to earn their livelihood and it took them
some ·time to go back to their home and take steps for filing
the revision. The High Court did not accept the reason assigned
by the appellants as a valid or sufficient reason for condoning       B
the delay and, consequently, dismissed the revision, without
going into the merits of the case, as barred by limitation.

    4. We are unable .to agree with the view taken by the High
Court.
                                                                      c
      5. The law of limitation is indeed an important law on the
statute book. It is in furtherance of the sound public policy to
put a quietus to disputes or grievances of which resolution and
redressal are not sought within the prescribed time. The law of
limitation is intended to allow things to finally settle down after   D
a reasonable time and not to let everyone live in a state of
uncertainty. It does not permit any one to raise claims that are
very old and stale and does not allow anyone to approach the
higher tiers of the judicial system for correction of the lower
court's orders or for redressal of grievances at ones own sweet       E
will. The law of limitation indeed must get due respect and
observance by all courts. We must, however, add that in cases
of conviction and imposition of sentence of imprisonment, the
court must show far greater indulgence and flexibility in applying
the law of limitation than in any other kind of case. A sentence      F
of imprisonment relates to a person's right to personal liberty
which is one of the most important rights available to an
individual and, therefore, the court should be very reluctant to
shut out a consideration of the ca£e on merits on grounds of
limitation or any other similar technicality.
                                                                      G
     6. Coming to the case in hand, it is a well known fact that
a large number of people come from Bihar to Delhi leaving their
hearths and homes to earn a livelihood. A vast number of them
work in unorganized sectors. Once caught in the vortex of
earning the daily bread, all other important things in life such      H
    428     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 11 S.C.R.


A as marriage in the family, medical treatment and even defending
  oneself in a criminal proceeding are relegated to the
  background. We feel that the High Court dismissed the
  appellant's revision quite mechanically applying the bar of
  limitation and without giving any allowance to the circumstances
B of the appellants.

       7. Looking at the matter from another point of view, under
  the Patna High Court Rules, a revision against conviction can
  be entertained only after the revision-petitioner surrenders
  before the court below. fhankfully, this rule, unlike some other
C provisions of the High Court Rules, is still followed very strictly.
  Thus, as the revision filed by the appellants was taken up by
  the High Court they were already in jail. In case, the revision
  was dismissed after consideration on merits, the appellants
  would have continued to remain in jail to serve out their
D sentences. Had the revision been filed iri time, they would have
  surrendered 15 months earlier and thus would have completed
  their sentence 15 months earlier. All that happened due to the
  delayed filing of the revision is that they would complete their
  sentence, in case of dismissal of the revision 15 months later.
E
       8. In light of what is said above, we are clearly of the view
  that it was a fit case in which the High Court should have
  condoned the delay in filing the revision by the appellants and
  examined their case on merits.
F      9. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court
  and restore the Criminal Revision Petition No.1383 of 2010 to
  its original file. The High Court is requested to take it up for
  hearing and decide it expeditiously. In the meanwhile, the
  appellants shall continue to remain on bail, as granted by this
G Court.

        10. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations
    and directions.

H N.J.                                         Appeal disposed of.