Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28 th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5224 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN S/O BABULAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYED, R/O 61, RADHA
KRISHNA VIHAR, PIPLYAHANA, RADIO COLONY,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI NAVENDU JOSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAILASH CHANDRA S/O LATE SHRI
SHANKARLAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR, R/O 7-A SAINATH
COLONY, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JITENDRA S/O RAMGOPAL SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR,
R/O NAVALPURA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SM. NIRMILA SHARMA W/O KAILASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE, R/O 7-A, SAINATH COLONY, BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. AASHISH S/O KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
R/O 7-A, SAINATH COLONY, BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RAJENDRA S/O LAE SHRI SHANKARLAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
S ERVICE, R/O 16, RADHAKRISHNA COLONY,
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/28/2023
7:25:07 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI H.S RATHORE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE;
SHRI RIZWAN KHAN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA.No.9176/2022, which is an application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. There is a delay of 1073 days in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court vide
judgment06/05/2019 passed in S.T.No.600097/2010 convicted the accused
persons for different offences. Appellant is not so educated and law knowing
person, therefore, he was under the wrong impression that there is no limitation
prescribed for filing an appeal before the High Court, he has failed to file this
appeal within the stipulated time period. Hence, he prays that application be
allowed and delay of 1073 days in filing the appeal be condoned.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6 prays for its
rejection by submitting that appellant has failed to prove day to day delay in
filing the appeal. It is a huge delay of 1073 days. The said delay defeats the
equity, therefore, the aforesaid delay cannot be condoned and appeal deserves
to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents No.2
to 6 placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Majji
Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others reported in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260, Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 and Pundlik Jalam Patil
(Dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/28/2023
7:25:07 PM
Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State also opposed the application and
prays for its rejection.
7. From perusal of the delay application, it appears that appellant has
filed this appeal with a delay because he has no knowledge about the law, but
ignorance of law is not an excuse. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of P. K.
Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (1997) 7 SCC
"This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory
or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of
delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking
condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court,
it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was
pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, Kollam on
30.10.1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was
examined by the District Government Pleader, Special
Law Officer, Law Secretary and the Advocate General
and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that
there was no scope for filing the appeal but lateron,
despite the opinion referred to above, the appeal was
filed as late as on 8.1.1996 without disclosing why it was
being filed. The High Court does not appear to have
examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to
the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order.
We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances
of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or
satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent
State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565
days."
8. Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma (Supra) in
paragraph No.18 to 20 has held as under:-
"18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while
refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed
that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even
appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of
delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further
observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/28/2023
7:25:07 PM
particular party but it has to be applied with all its
rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts
have no power to extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. It is further observed that while
exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the court
has to exercise discretion judiciously.
19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed as under: "The laws of limitation are founded
on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes
described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and
perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and
uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for
public order. The principle is based on the maxim
"interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the
interest of the State requires that there should be end to
litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a
means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and
perjury, quickening diligence and preventing
oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation
is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal
remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are
meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond
in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the
assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
20. In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and
held by this Court that the discretion to condone the
delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case. It is further observed that
the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally
interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even
though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but
it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has
acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is
inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for
condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is
observed that each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid down by this
Court. It is further observed that if courts start
condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out
by imposing conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing utter
disregard to legislature."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/28/2023
7:25:07 PM
9. Hon'ble the apex Court again in the case of Basawaraj (Supra) in
paragraph No.12 has held as under:-
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing
from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has
no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it
considers a distress resulting from its operation." The
statutory provision may cause hardship or
inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no
choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The
legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is
hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a
situation. It has consistently been held that,
"inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered
while interpreting a statute."
10. In view of the aforesaid and from perusal of the delay application, it
appears that appellant has failed to explain day to day delay for non-filing of this
appeal / revision. Huge delay of 1073 days is not properly explained by the
appellant. Ignorance of law is not an excuse, therefore, IA.No.9176/2022, which
is an application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Other applications
are also stands rejected.
11. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/28/2023
7:25:07 PM
