Court No.7
C.M.A. No. 37082 of 2009
Inre:
Crl. Appeal No. 929 of 2009
Santosh Kumar (Santosh) ...........Appellant/Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. ..........Opp. Party
*****
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay
that took place in the presentation of the appeal.
It has been stated in the application and the affidavit, annexed therewith that the
appeal could not be preferred within prescribed period of limitation because appellant was
in financial dearth and when he arranged the money,
No counter affidavit has been filed by the State against the affidavit filed on behalf
of the appellant. However, learned A.G.A. orally opposed the application on the ground that
delay is of considerable period.
I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There
is no doubt that the present matter, a delay of one year, nine months and seventeen days has
taken place but the important thing is the reason which has been put forward for the
condonation of delay. If the reason is found sufficient the delay that has taken place in the
presentation of the appeal, is not material. It is a settled law that the legislature has
conferred the power to condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order
to enable the court to do substantial justice between the parties by disposing of the matter on
merit and demerit and not on technical ground. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by
the legislature is adequately eleastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful
manner which subserve the ends of justice for which the courts exist. Hon’ble Supreme Court
time and again has held that in deciding an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
a liberal approach should be adopted and refusing to condone the delay can result in a
meritorious case being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being
defeated and there is no presumption that delay which occasioned was deliberate. The
appellant was not going to be benefited in any way in not lodging the appeal within the time.
The explanation put forward by the appellant in his application and affidavit
annexed therewith appears to be sufficient, therefore, the period of delay is of no
consequence. It is settled law that if sufficient cause is shown, a delay of long period may be
condoned but if sufficient cause is not shown even a short delay cannot be condoned. It is
settled law that era of technical justice is over and substantial justice should be done
between the parties on merit and demerit of the matter.
In view of the above, there appears sufficient cause for condonation of delay that
took place in the presentation of appeal. The delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted.
Summon the lower court record within fifteen days. List the appeal for hearing on prayer for
bail and suspension of sentence, immediately thereafter.
In the meantime, objection against prayer for bail and suspension of sentence may
be filed by the State.
08.01.2010
Amit