Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakshminarayan Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26704
1 CRR-2080-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2080 of 2023
LAKSHMINARAYAN SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajnish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav, learned G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. no 13310/2024, an application filed u/s 5 of limitation Act for condonation of delay of 344 days in filing the revision petition.
2. This revision petition u/S 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/ accused being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24/03/2021 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No.37/2021, whereby learned trial court has framed charges for the offence u/S 376, 376(2)(n) r/w 120 B of the IPC.
3. Application u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, having been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner was suffering from brain haemorrhage and he was operated to cure the same, because of which he was unable to file the revision petition within time. It is further submitted that delay in filing the criminal revision is neither intentional nor wilful but due to aforesaid reason, delay has been caused. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay of 344 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 13-09-2024 16:43:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26704 2 CRR-2080-2023 days in filing the revision petition may be condoned.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/ state vehemently opposed the prayed of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has neither filed any document nor certificate of any concerning doctor to show that at the relevant time he was suffering from any type of illness and he was operated. Delay caused by the petitioner is wilful and the cause shown by him is baseless. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. In the case of Patha Pati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) in SLP (Civil) No.31248/2018 , after considering several earlier judgments the Apex Court opined as under:-
"26 On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 13-09-2024 16:43:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26704 3 CRR-2080-2023
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
7. In the instant case, the petitioner neither filed any document nor any certificate of the concerning doctor to show that at the relevant time he was suffering from brain haemorrhage and he was operated. Therefore, it appears that no sufficient cause is shown in the application for condonation of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 13-09-2024 16:43:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26704 4 CRR-2080-2023 delay and it appears that the petitioner was negligent in filing the revision petition within stipulated period. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.13310/2024 under section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is also rejected as time barred.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 13-09-2024 16:43:50