High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1126 of 2023 Revisionist :- Dr. B.R. Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Tinku Singh,Vijay Singh Gour Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard Shri Tinku Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Gyan
Legal Reasoning
Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, which took place in filing of the criminal revision. The said revision is filed against the charge, which was framed on 09.10.2017, and as per office report, there is delay of 1327 days in filing of the said criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the delay in filing of the revision is not deliberate and in fact earlier one advocate was engaged and all documents were handed over to him for filing of the case and that the advocate has informed that the case is pending but later on, the revisionist came to know that he has not filed any case and thus, delay has taken place in filing of the criminal revision. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the facts of matter, the delay in filing the revision is liable to be condoned. 4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General has opposed the application and submitted that there is no sufficient cause for this long delay of 1327 days in filing of the criminal revision. Even it has not been clarified that when and to which advocate the revisionist has hand over the papers for filing of the case and that merely a vague allegation has been made that documents were handed over to some advocate. It was submitted that such explanation cannot be termed as sufficient cause for not filing the revision for a period of 1327 days. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Section 5 Limitation Act provides that an appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Generally the words 'sufficient cause' must be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the petitioner. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], the Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice…... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation." 7. In case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649, Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to various authorities broadly culled out the following principles :- "i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude." 8. In case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and others 2010 (28) LCD 1531, it has been held that while considering an application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. It has been further stated therein that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. In case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held that Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 9. Considering the aforesaid legal provisions, in the instant matter it may be seen that the criminal revision in question is filed against the order of charge with delay of 1327 days. For this long delay of 1327 days, the only explanation offered by the revisionist/applicant is that earlier one advocate was engaged and all documents were handed over to him for filing of the revision and that the advocate has informed that the case is pending but later on, the revisionist came to know that he has not filed any case. There is absolutely no such version that when and which advocate was engaged and when the papers were handed over to him . Merely a vague averment has been made that earlier the documents were given to some advocate to file the case but he did not file the case. It is correct that liberal approach has to be adopted in matter of condonation of delay but when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. In the instant matter it is apparent that there has been inaction, negligence and latches on the part of the applicant. The explanation offered for the delay of 1327 days lacks bona-fide and it can be hardly be termed as sufficient cause for long delay of 1327 days. Thus, no case for condonation of delay is made out. 10. The application filed under section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay, in filing the revision, is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Suraj Digitally signed by :- SURAJ YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad