REPORTABLE           

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1812 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10358/2010)

ABDUL GHAFOOR & ANR                ...APPELLANT(S)

                VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR                       ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Heard  Mr.  Gaurav  Aggarwal,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Ardhendumauli  

Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State  

of Bihar.

Leave granted.

The  appellants  were  convicted  by  the  trial  

Court  (Judicial  Magistrate  –Ist  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 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 a delay  

1

of more than 15 months. The appellants  sought  

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 the delay and, consequently, dismissed the  

revision, without going into the merits of the case,  

as barred by limitation.  

We are unable to agree with the view taken by  

the High Court.   

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 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 will. The law of limitation indeed must  

get due respect and observance by all courts. We must,  

2

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  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 case on merits on grounds  

of limitation or any other similar technicality.  

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  

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 of  

the appellants.  

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  

3

revision-petitioner surrenders  before  the  

court below.  Thankfully, this rule, unlike some other  

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  

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.  

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.

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.   

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 Court.  

The  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  above  

4

observations  and directions.

………………………………………………….J.            (Aftab Alam)

………………………………………………….J. Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi, September 16, 2011

5