Vinodsinh @ Raju Hukamsinh Sengar vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 6847 Guj

                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




   R/CR.MA/16353/2023                           ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023

                                                                              undefined




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16353 of 2023
       In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 29947 of 2023
==========================================================
                 VINODSINH @ RAJU HUKAMSINH SENGAR
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SAHISTA S KHOKHAR(11116) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                           Date : 15/09/2023

                            ORAL ORDER

[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 168 days caused in filing the captioned F/Criminal Revision Application No. 29947 of 2023 challenging the judgment and order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot.

[3.0] I 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 Criminal Revision Application in timely fashion because of financial hardship being faced by the family of the applicant as the applicant belongs to poor strata of society and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/16353/2023 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2023

undefined

[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 application at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicant 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 bona fide and genuine. There is no smack of mala fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant.

[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 168 days as explained in the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) KUMAR ALOK