Gujarat High Court
Vohra Irfanbhai Hajimohmaadbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7109/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
7109 of 2024
In
F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10421 of 2024
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 528 of 2024
================================================================
VOHRA IRFANBHAI HAJIMOHMAADBHAI (SARSAVALA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) 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 : 27/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 14 days in filing of the
above Restoration Application.
2. It is submitted that the applicant is suffering sentence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'N.I.
Act'). It is further submitted that because of the lack
of funds, the applicant could not take legal assistance
in time. In addition, the matter got dismissed for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7109/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
default for non-removal of office objections. The
applicant has surrendered on 07.02.2024. It is also
submitted that the only objection was regarding the
certified copy, which could not be procured in time
and all these aspects / factors have contributed to the
above delay.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the applicant had enough time to remove the office
objections and each and every delay is required to be
explained and therefore, urged to reject the
application.
4. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7109/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
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, 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."
5. Considering the submissions advanced, in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and could not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7109/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
take legal assistance in time as also the ratio laid
down in the above judgment, the present application
is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing of the
above restoration application in Criminal Revision
Application is condoned. The matter be restored to
the original file and be listed on JULY 1, 2024.
6. Let the connected main matter be also listed on JULY
1, 2024.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
