Gujarat High Court
Narmadaben Bharatbhai Bababhai vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 4 March, 2014
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
R/CR.MA/15095/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15095 of 2013
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15091 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15091 of 2013
=======================================================
NARMADABEN BHARATBHAI BABABHAI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SL VAISHYA for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 5
MADANSINGH O BAROD for the Respondent(s) No. 2 5
MR KH PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 04/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
Criminal Misc. Application No. 15095 of 2013
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant, who claims to be an injured person, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1741 days in filing the appeal challenging the order passed in Criminal Case No.798/2008 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad dated 15.12.2009 regarding the compromise arrived at between the original complainant and the accused for the alleged offences under the IP Code.
Page 1 of 5
R/CR.MA/15095/2013 ORDER
2. Heard learned advocate, Shri S.L. Vaishya for the applicant, learned APP Mr.H.K. Patel for the respondent no.1State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Shri Barod, who appears as legal aid advocate through High Court Legal Aid Committee.
3. Learned advocate, Shri Vaishya has made submission with regard to the background of the facts and has referred to the papers including the injury certificate produced at page no.20 and the impugned order passed. He submitted that the purshis was given and the case was taken on board without any information or knowledge of the present applicant. He therefore submitted that in light of the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code, the victim like the applicant has a right and, therefore, the appeal is sought to be preferred. He submitted that the applicant tried to obtain certified copy of the order and has filed the application. He submitted that it came to the knowledge of the applicant in the year 2013 and, therefore, the present application seeking condonation of delay may be allowed. He has not referred to the judgment but the papers taken out from the SSC online case with regard to the Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/15095/2013 ORDER condonation of delay and requested for codonation of delay.
4. Few facts are required to be mentioned that in this application for condonation of delay, as rightly submitted, no ground or reason for such inordinate delay is even mentioned apart from the explanation thereof for such long delay. Further, learned advocate, Shri Vaishya is hammering about his caste and compromises on the basis of the compromise purshis. However, a close look at the papers would suggest that the case was sought to be compromised between the complainant and the accused persons with consent and the present applicant is the only witness as stated by the applicant himself. When the incident occurred as a neighbour, they had gone. The injury certificate also does not reflect about any serious injuries. Therefore in fact, the applicant, who claims to be injured, is merely a witness and not the victim of the incident. Therefore, main issue whether the applicant has locus standi may arise apart from the fact that even on the aspect of condonation of delay, as there is no explanation much less any sufficient cause for explanation of delay, the Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/15095/2013 ORDER present application cannot be entertained.
5. It is well accepted that the law of limitation has been made as a part of public policy that the person cannot be kept under the pressure on hanging sword and there has to be a finality. At the same time, if there is no sufficient cause made out, the court may exercise the discretion as provided under the Limitation Act on being satisfied about the justification for such delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 has referred to the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in such matters and it has bee observed, "The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. ................"
Page 4 of 5
R/CR.MA/15095/2013 ORDER
6. In the said judgment, it has also been observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. Further, it has been observed that the sufficient cause is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Therefore, ultimately it has to be seen whether such exercise is in the interest of justice. Again it has been observed that, the approach of the court should be liberal in condoning the shorter duration and stricter approach in inordinate delay.
7. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the present application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Criminal Misc. Application No. 15095 of 2013 In view of above order, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Sd/ (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Gautam Page 5 of 5