Ranjeet Chauhan @ Ranjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Chauhan @ Ranjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 January, 2010
                                                                                          Court No.7
                                   C.M.A. No. 104209 of 2009
                                               Inre:
                                  Crl. Appeal No. 2545 of 2009
Ranjeet Chauhan alias Ranjeet Singh                         ...........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 of the poverty of the
father of the deponent, who is Parokar of this case of appellant. It is further stated that delay is
not willful and was due to the facts stated in the affidavit.

No counter/objection has been filed by the State against the application for condonation
of delay. However, learned A.G.A. orally opposed the application on the ground that delay is of
considerable period and the appeal could have been filed from Jail as provided under Section 383
of the Cr.P.C.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. There is no
doubt that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of about one month and twenty one days
but the important thing is the ground which has been put forward for the condonation of delay. As
per appellant the appeal could not be filed due to paucity of funds. No counter affidavit has been
filed by the State to the effect that the grounds set forth in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant are not true. The appellant was not going to be benefited in any way in lodging the
appeal late. It is true that there is a provision to file appeal from Jail but there is nothing wrong in
it if the appellant chooses to file an appeal through counsel and accordingly instructed his
Parokar. The appellant could not be blamed for lodging appeal late if the Parokar due to paucity of
funds could not file the appeal within the time. 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 to 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 elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner
which subserve the ends of justice for which the courts exists. 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *