Dwarika Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6816 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Criminal Revision No.1327 of 2019


 Dwarika Chandrakar S/o Mahadev Chandrakar (Wrongly Mentioned
 As Mahodav Chandrakar) Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ranpa,
 Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh---- Applicant
                                 Versus
     State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate (Police
     Staion    Kunda),      District  Kabirdham      Chhattisgarh
                                                ---Non-Applicant


For Applicant:                Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State:      Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, PL.


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                            Order on Board
15.11.2022

1.

This Revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated

20.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57/2019 whereby the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kabirdham (Kawardha)

has allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

by condoning the delay of 11 days in filing of the Acquittal Appeal

under Section 378(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Shri Bharat, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the

certified copy of the judgment is delivered to the Public Prosecutor on

the date of passing of the judgment i.e. 10.01.2018 itself and as such

there was no occasion to apply for another certified copy of the same.

The State has filed the Appeal with delay which was not properly

explained and the said delay caused was deliberate and not bona

fide, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the

Revision may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the State

supported the order impugned and submits that sufficient cause has

been shown for the delay and the order passed by the Court below is

well merited and does not call for any interference invoking revisional

jurisdiction.

4. It is settled law that generally the courts including Supreme

Court adopt a liberal approach in considering application for

condonation of delay on ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act. Though Section 5 of the Act envisages the

explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court and makes no

distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of

a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is

dependent on the action of its officials, who often do not have any

personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of

justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such

cases. The said principle is laid down in the matter of Indian Oil

Corporation Limited and Others vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and

Others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 419.

5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case as depicted in

the impugned order and the reasons assigned by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge for condonation of delay and taking into

consideration the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others vs. Subrata

Borah Chowlek and Others (supra) while dealing with the application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I do not find any error in the

order passed by the Court below warranting the revisoinal jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, the instant Revision sans merit and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya