Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/1578/2026 of HUKUM RAM Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 20 August 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.35 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Hukum Ram ……...Appellant Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No.35 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.08.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Hukum Ram
……...Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Another
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________
For the Appellant: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Cr.MP(M) No.1578 of 2026
By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal, which is barred by limitation.
2. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/appellant and as such, delay in filing the appeal, which in my
2 considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal No.35 of 2026
3. Be registered.
4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge-1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.65 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Hukam Ram, this Court finds no illegality in the same and as such, no interference is called for. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is 88 years old and does not have any regular source of income, this Court deems it fit to modify the penalty from ₹50,000/- to ₹40,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of penalty shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the movable and/or immovable property of the surety-petitioner, Hukum Ram.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with pending application(s), if any.
August 20, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi
Judge