Gujarat High Court

Anil Madhukantbhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/8242/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
                                               NO. 8242 of 2025
                           In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 15307 of 2025
                      ==========================================================
                                       ANIL MADHUKANTBHAI THAKKAR
                                                    Versus
                                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR DARSHAN P DAVE(5928) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 07/05/2025
                                                            ORAL ORDER

Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr. Yash Joshi, who has instructions to appear for the respondent No.2.

[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 446 days caused in filing the revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2023.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the delay was caused purely due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant and there was no malafide intention on the part of the applicant in filing the revision application belatedly and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the revision application.

[3.0] Learned APP as well as learned advocate for respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8242/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025

undefined

No.2 have vehemently opposed the present application.

[4.0] 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 revision 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 bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant.

[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 446 days as explained in the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

Ajay