Sherusinh @ Shushilsinh S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5168 Guj

     R/CR.MA/17724/2022                         ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17724 of 2022
                  In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1898 of 2022
==========================================================
     SHERUSINH @ SHUSHILSINH S/O MATOLASINH PACHPALSING
                     THAKUR (CHAUHAN)
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

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

                            Date : 04/07/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. Rule. Mr. Hardik Soni, 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 76 days caused in filing the captioned criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Special Atrocity Case No.21 of 2018 .

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The efforts to serve the respondent No.2 original complainant has not born any result. However, it is reported that the complainant has been communicated and is made aware of the present proceedings. Today, when the matter is called out no

R/CR.MA/17724/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

one is representing the respondent No.2.

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.

6. In view of the above, the delay of 76 days is not being inordinate as explained in para 3, the application is considered. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI