Manojbhai Batukbhai Baraiya vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5940 Guj

                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




   R/CR.MA/14271/2023                           ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

                                                                              undefined




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14271 of 2023
             In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27911 of 2023
==========================================================
                  MANOJBHAI BATUKBHAI BARAIYA
                             Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJENDRA D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
         and
         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                       Date : 11/08/2023
                         ORAL ORDER

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

[1.0 RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State of Gujarat.

[2.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 424 days caused in filing the captioned criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Court) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Special Case (POCSO) No.165 of 2021.

[3.0] We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not file the appeal in timely fashion because the applicant was in jail and could not arrange for necessary funds for paying the fees of a private advocate and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14271/2023 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

the criminal appeal.

[4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application.

[5.0] 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 the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss the appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that 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.

[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 424 days as explained in para 2 of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay