Delhi High Court
Santosh Singh Bhati vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 15 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15th May, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 5306/2014
MANJIT SINGH BHATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State
along with SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Jyoti Nagar, in person.
Mr.Pramod Kumar, Adv. with
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 5284/2014
BIJENDER SINGH BHATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State
along with SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Jyoti Nagar, in person.
Mr.Pramod Kumar, Adv. with
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 5296/2014
SANTOSH SINGH BHATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv.
versus
Crl.M.C. Nos.5306/2014, 5284/2014 & 5296/2014 Page 1 of 5
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State
along with SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Jyoti Nagar, in person.
Mr.Pramod Kumar, Adv. with
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned three
petitions, filed by Manjit Singh Bhati, Bijender Singh Bhati and
Santosh Singh Bhati. Bijender Singh Bhati, who is the petitioner in
Crl. M.C. No.5284/2014, is the husband of Mrs.Chetna Bhati
(respondent No.2 in the said petition). Santosh Singh Bhati is the
mother of Manjit Singh Bhati and Bijender Singh Bhati.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between Bijender
Singh Bhati and Chetna Bhati was solemnized on 26th November,
2004. After the period of 18 months, i.e. on 2nd May, 2006,
respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home and started living
separately. The complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on 11th
March, 2011, i.e. about five years after they separated. On the basis
of the said complaint, the FIR No.407/2011 was registered against
the petitioners on 13th October, 2011 at Police Station Jyoti Nagar,
Delhi. The charges were framed against the petitioners on 25th
January, 2014.
3. The case of the petitioner Bijender Singh Bhati who is working
as Deputy Commander in Central Reserve Police Force and is
posted in Chhattisgarh came to Delhi on the night of 12th May, 2014.
Undisputedly he was on duty in Chhattisgarh from third week of
March, 2014 till 12th May, 2014. He contacted his counsel who
informed him about the framing of charge against him and his brother
and mother. The petitioners decided to file the revision petitions
which were drafted by the counsel. As there was a delay of 20 days
in filing the said revision petitions, the same were dismissed on the
grounds of delay by dismissing the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act by a common order dated 9th July, 2014 which has
been challenged before this Court by way of the present petitions.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has referred the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa
Coalfields Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 361, para 8 of the same
reads as under:-
"8. Now, what do the words "within such period"
denote? It is possible that the expression "within such
period" may sometimes mean during such period. But
the question is: Does the context in which the expression
occurs in Section 5 justify the said interpretation? If the
Limitation Act or any other appropriate statute prescribes
different periods of limitation either for appeals or
applications to which Section 5 applies that normally
means that liberty is given to the party intending to make
the appeal or to file an application to act within the period
prescribed in that behalf. It would not be reasonable to
require a party to take the necessary action on the very
first day after the cause of action accrues. In view of the
period of limitation prescribed the party would be entitled
to take its time and to file the appeal on any day during
the said period; and so prima facie it appears
unreasonable that when delay has been made by the
party in filing the appeal it should be called upon to
explain its conduct during the whole of the period of
limitation prescribed. In our opinion, it would be
immaterial and even irrelevant to invoke general
considerations of diligence of parties in construing the
words of Section 5. The context seems to suggest that
"within such period" means within the period which ends
with the last day of limitation prescribed. In other words,
in all cases falling under Section 5 what the party has to
show is why he did not file an appeal on the last day of
limitation prescribed. That may inevitably mean that the
party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not
filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay
made thereafter day by day. In other words, in showing
sufficient cause for condoning the delay the party may be
called upon to explain for the whole of the delay covered
by the period between the last day prescribed for filing
the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed. To
hold that the expression "within such period" means
during such period would, in our opinion, be repugnant in
the context. We would accordingly hold that the learned
Judicial Commissioner was in error in taking the view
that the failure of the appellant to account for its non-
diligence during the whole of the period of limitation
prescribed for the appeal necessarily disqualified it from
praying for the condonation of delay, even though the
delay in question was only for one day; and that too was
caused by the party's illness."
5. I have also gone through the applications filed by the petitioners
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the grounds stated in
the said applications. I am of the considered view that there are valid
and sufficient reasons given in the said application for condonation of
delay. Thus, the delay of 20 days is condoned. The revision
petitions are restored to their original position by allowing these three
petitions. The impugned order is set-aside. The Additional Sessions
Judge to decide the revision petitions as per their own merits.
6. The parties to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge
concerned on 8th July, 2015.
7. Copies of this order be given dasti to both the parties. A copy
of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2015
