Gujarat High Court
Shabbirbhai Jummabhai Shaikh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 November, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.MA/20270/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20270 of 2022
In
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20269 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2199 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20269 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2199 of 2022
================================================================
SHABBIRBHAI JUMMABHAI SHAIKH (DHOBI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
NO.20270 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION NO.20269 OF 2022
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Zubin
F. Bharda who states that the applicant has
challenged the judgment and order of acquittal in
Criminal Case No.1063 of 2020 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
R/CR.MA/20270/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2022
referred to in short as the 'N.I. Act') and who has
preferred an Appeal and a Leave to Appeal which has
resulted in a delay of 14 days.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted
that the above delay has occurred as the applicant
had to file about nine applications and had to
manage the funds. It is also submitted that the
applicant is a washerman who had sold the property
and had received the sale consideration through
cheques from the purchasers, but those cheques were
dishonored and therefore, the applicant was
constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. It is also submitted that because of
financial constraints / management of expenses, the
above delay has occurred.
3. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in
AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to
condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian
Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the
Courts to do substantial justice to parties by
R/CR.MA/20270/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2022
disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression
"sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is
adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the
law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the
ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the
existence of the institution of Courts. It is common
knowledge that this Court has been making a
justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in
this Court. But the message does not appear to
have percolated down to all the other Courts in
the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is
adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is con- doned the highest
that can happen is that a cause would be decided
on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not
mean that a pedantic approach should be made.
Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?
The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence,
R/CR.MA/20270/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/11/2022
or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not
stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he
runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected
not on account of its power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so."
4. Considering the submissions advanced and in view of
the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio
laid down in the above judgment, the present
application is allowed and the delay of 14 days in
filing of the Criminal Appeal is condoned.
5. Let the Leave to Appeal and/or other connected
matters be listed on NOVEMBER 22, 2022.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
