Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26291
1 CRR-3771-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3771 of 2024
ANAND KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mohammad Aadil Usmani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the order dated 27.06.2024
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District-Narmadapuram
(M.P.) in MJC No.95/2019.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court
has passed an order that is perverse and the trial Court has not considered the
aspect that the State and the individual be kept in the same footing while
deciding the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that no sufficient reason has
been given in this application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the
State before the trial Court and the application is not supported by the
affidavit of appellant and without considering these aspects, the trial Court
without going through the provision and object of the legislation has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26291
2 CRR-3771-2024
condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
4. In application, the State has not mentioned when the matter was sent
for sanction to Collector, Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad) and when they
obtained the sanction and why the matter was kept pending by the Collector
but the trial Court has not considered all these aspects. There is no
explanation regarding filing of the appeal when they got the certified copy on
13.06.2019 but the appeal was filed on 27.08.2019. Hence, the revision be
allowed and impugned order be quashed.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the
trial Court has passed the appropriate order. No interference is called for.
Hence, the revision be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the argument has
relied on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Durga
Prasad and others v. Prabhudayal Sonkiya in Miscellaneous Petition
No.1315/2024 dated 21.05.2024 in which this Court has held that the time
period is not material but the reason should be sufficient. He has also relied
on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy
(Died) and others v. The Special Deputy Collector in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.31248 of 2018 dated 08.04.2024 in which the Apex Court in para
26 of the judgment has held as under :-
26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as
aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should
be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than
the right itself;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26291
3 CRR-3771-2024
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of
for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed
period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal
approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice
may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the
substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the
Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the
delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of
power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where
there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does
not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the
court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing
the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in
condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the
delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.
7. Learned counsel has also submitted that the applicant was acquitted
by the trial Court and that finding has become final. On such flimsy grounds,
the delay should not be condoned and finality judgment of the trial Court
could not be disturbed.
8. Heard the parties and perused the record.
9. I have gone through the application filed by the State before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26291
4 CRR-3771-2024
Sessions Court under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is stated that the
judgment was passed on 01.05.2019 and they have applied before the Court
for certified copy of the judgment and other documents on 03.05.2019 and
certified copy was delivered them on 13.06.2019. This period is exempted
from the limitation and further stated that after obtaining the certified copy,
Assistant Public Prosecutor has presented the case before the Collector,
Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad) for sanction and after the sanction by the
Collector, they got the file on 20.08.2019 and after that, appeal was filed on
27.08.2019.
10. The applicant by filing the reply has stated that certified copy of
the judgment was already prepared but the appellant has not received the
copies and they have received sanction of the Collector, Narmadapurama
(Hoshangabad) on 03.07.2019 but the appeal was not presented before the
Sessions Court within limitation and they have not disclosed the date when
letter for the sanction was written to Collector and when they got the
sanction and thus they had not explained day to day delay occurred in
preferring the appeal. No copy of the correspondence between the appellant
and the State has not been produced before the Appellate Court and no
affidavit of the competent authority has been produced, hence, it is prayed
that the application be dismissed.
11. The Sessions Court, after hearing both the parties, passed the
impugned order and condoned the delay.
12. I have gone through the application, reply, order of the trial Court.
13. From the order, the applicant has admitted that there is 90 days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26291
5 CRR-3771-2024
limitation under Article 114 of Limitation Act to prefer an appeal from the
judgment of acquittal of Trial Court to Appellate Court. As per the
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it is clear that the application
to obtain the certified copy of the judgment was filed on 03.05.2019 and
copies were obtained by the respondent on 13.06.2019. Thus, 39 days period
is exempted under Section 12(3) of Limitation Act and if this period is only
considered, there is delay of only 27 days which is within limitation. Hence,
the trial Court though on the different reasons but in my opinion has not
committed any mistake or error or perversity in passing the order. Hence,
the Criminal Revision being devoid of merits is dismissed.
14. The copy of the this order be sent to the concerned Court for
information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
