Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamalkishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18843
1 CRR-3528-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3528 of 2025
KAMALKISHORE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kori - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Harish Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.16293/2025, which is an application under Section 5
of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3089 days.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appellant was not
aware about the limitation period for filing the revision against the charge.
Hence, he prays that the delay of 3089 days may be condoned.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the reason for delay is not
justified and the application deserves to be dismissed.
4. Petitioner's sole explanation of delay is ignorance of 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 556
in paragraph No.5 has held as under:-
"This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18843
2 CRR-3528-2025
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."
5. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma alias
Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
1260 in Paragraphs 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18843
3 CRR-3528-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18843
4 CRR-3528-2025
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."
6. Hon'ble the apex Court again in the case of Basawaraj and another
Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18843
5 CRR-3528-2025
not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute."
7. In view of the aforesaid and from perusal of the delay application, it
appears that petitioner has failed to explain day to day delay for non-filing of
this revision. Huge delay of 3089 days is not properly explained by the
petitioner. Ignorance of law is not an excuse, therefore, I.A. No.16293/2025 ,
which is an application for condonation of delay, is hereby rejected.
8. Consequently, the criminal revision stands dismissed.
9. Other pending applications are also disposed of.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
