Case Law on S. 249-A, Cr.P.C, prosecution, against condonation of delay

PCrLJ  2019  Lah 1241   

---Trial Court, after hearing Public prosecutor as well as counsel for accused, had pronounced the judgment, hence the procedure prescribed under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. was duly complied with---Under S. 493, Cr.P.C., it was only Public prosecutor who had to conduct the prosecution and if there was any private counsel, engaged by the complainant, he was required to act under the instructions of the Public prosecutor ---Stance of the appellant that he should have been given notice was of no legal value---No reason, cause or justification to condone the delay was made out---Appeal, being barred by time, was dismissed.