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