[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pintu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26718) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26718]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 332/2025
Pintu S/o Motiram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Jajiwal
Gahlota Police Station Banar District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/05/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. application has been preferred by
the applicant for restoration of S.B. Criminal Appeal
No.1618/2024 decided on 21.04.2025.
2. The appeal (1618/2024) against the Judgment of Conviction
and Order of Sentence dated 26.09.2024 passed by the
Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.7/2021, preferred by the
appellant, which was dismissed in default vide order dated
21.04.2025 by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) for non-
compliance of order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court.
3. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of his failure to
furnish an extra set of the memorandum of appeal. However,
the law does not permit such dismissal on this ground. For
the appellant’s failure to file an extra set, required for issuing
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 09:16:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26718] (2 of 4) [CRLMA-332/2025]
notice to the respondent, he may be adequately admonished
or penalized in another appropriate manner, but his appeal
cannot be dismissed solely on this account.
This similar issue has already been dealt with by the Court in
an identical manner i.e. Satish Vs. State & Anr (SBCRLMA
No.305/2025 decided on 26.05.2025). The said order is
being reproduced as under:-
1. The instant criminal misc. application has been
preferred by the applicant for restoration of S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 2090/2024 which was dismissed
in default of non-compliance of order dated
03.04.2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this
Court and in furtherance of which the criminal appeal
was dismissed by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) vide
order dated 07.05.2025.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State and perused the
orders dated 03.04.2025 passed by the coordinate
bench of this Court and order dated 07.05.2025
passed by Dy. Registrar (Judicial).
3. For better reference, this Court feels it
appropriate to reproduce the order dated 03.04.2025
passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court and
order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Dy Registrar
(Judicial):-
03.04.2025
“Two weeks’ time is granted for filing extra set,
failing which the criminal appeal shall stand
dismissed without reference to the Court.”
DY. REGISTRAR (JUDL.)
S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 2090/2024
Date: 07.05.2025
None present.
“As per office report, required extra sets not
filed within stipulated time as granted by
Hon’ble Court.
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 09:16:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26718] (3 of 4) [CRLMA-332/2025]
Since, the compliance of the Hon’ble Court order
dated 03.04.2025 has not been made,
therefore, the case stands dismissed for non-
compliance.”
4. This Court has perused the relevant orders and
is of the considered view that the applicant failed to
file an additional set of documents, and due to this
non-compliance, the case was dismissed by the
Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The applicant stands
convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum
punishment of twenty years R.I. under Section
376(3) and lesser punishment under Sections
366(A), 363 & 323 of IPC.
5. The law, in this regard, entitles a person in
custody to legal assistance or the appointment of an
amicus curiae to ensure a fair trial and proper
adjudication. It is a well-settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that an appeal must be decided on its
merits after affording both parties a fair opportunity
to be heard and under no circumstances should a
criminal appeal against conviction and sentence be
dismissed in a mechanical or preemptive manner due
to non-prosecution or procedural default. It is indeed
unfortunate to observe that the Deputy Registrar has
dismissed and thereby effectively adjudicated the
final appeal involving a conviction under Section 376
(3) IPC, based solely on procedural compliance,
purportedly in accordance with this Court’s direction.
Such an approach runs counter to the foundational
principles of criminal justice.
6. In view of the above discussion, the application
for restoration is allowed and S.B. Criminal Appeal
No. 2090/2024 is restored.
7. Office to proceed.
In view of the above, the instant application for
restoration is allowed. The order dated 21.04.2025, passed
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 09:16:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26718] (4 of 4) [CRLMA-332/2025]
by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) in SBCRLA No.1618/2014 is
hereby quashed and set aside. Though the Registry acted in
accordance with the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Brother Judge, Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the
said authority for acting in compliance with such direction.
4. Nonetheless, it is a settled principle of law that an order
contrary to law cannot be allowed to stand merely on the
basis of compliance with a prior direction. A legal error, even
if committed in pursuance of a judicial order, must be
corrected if it results in miscarriage of justice or subverts
legal norms. A legally untenable approach deserves to be
rectified and not perpetuated.
5. Accordingly, the application for restoration is allowed. The
appeal No.1618/2024 shall be restored to its original number
and list the appeal before the appropriate Bench in due
course.
(FARJAND ALI),J
151-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 09:16:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link