Court No.7
Crl. Appeal No. 2340 of 2009
Rajjan alias Barrey ...........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 two months ten 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