Savan Maganbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5835 Guj

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/13547/2023                             ORDER DATED: 09/08/2023

                                                                                  undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13547 of 2023

                    In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26489 of 2023

==========================================================
                          SAVAN MAGANBHAI VASAVA
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KALPESH M PANDIT(2713) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 09/08/2023

                           ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No.1.

2. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 215 days caused in filing the captioned criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO, Surat in Special (POCSO) Case No.353 of 2019

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The applicant hails from poor strata of family and his is not in a position to hire private advocate. He is in jail since his arrest and he could not arrange money towards filing the appeal and approached State Legal Services Authority for legal aid, and therefore, filed this appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13547/2023 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2023

undefined

4. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of that if delay condonation application is refused would mean to dismiss the appeal at threshold and there is no presumption the delay caused by the appellant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant.

6. In view of the above, the delay of 215 days as explained in para 3 is considered. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI