Uttarakhand High Court
Tej Partap vs Unknown on 3 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.1956 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, for
the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy A.G., for the State
of Uttarakhand.
In a case instituted under Sections 85 (e), 85
(f) and 85 (g) of Employee State Insurance Act, the
proceedings were accompanying with an
application, being Misc. Case No. 206 of 2023, Dr.
Tej Partap Vs. Employee State Insurance
Corporation. The proceedings were drawn with a
delay of 189 days. The Delay Condonation
Application as accompanying the principle
proceedings, have been rejected by the Court of 2nd
Addl. Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar. Consequently, resulting into
dismissal of the principal proceedings drawn by the
present applicant.
There are various facets, which have been
attempted to be argued by the learned counsel for
the applicant, but looking to the totality of the facts,
pertaining to the grounds taken by the applicant,
that he may not be involved in the commission of
offence, because he has not joined the services by
that time. All these aspects are required to be
considered when the principal proceedings under
the aforesaid sections are decided on merits.
Even otherwise also, it is settled law, that law
of limitation has to be pragmatically interpreted by
the Court, and it should not deprive a person of his
defence to establish his innocence in commission of
offence. The stringent view is not to be taken while
deciding the delay condonation application as
postulated in the judgment as reported in (2001) 8
SCC 151, M.S. Grewal and another Vs. Deep
Chand Sood and others.
Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgment as reported in (2004) 1
SCC 119, Apangshu Mohan Lodh and others Vs.
State of Tripura and others.
This Court is of the view, that law of
limitation is not meant to harm a valuable right of
the parties, but it is to be determined on the basis of
subject matter involved, and the issue which is
required to be adjudicated. Particularly, when the
limitation aspect is being considered by the Court,
the Court will have to look into as to whether, is
there any private person whose right is likely to be
affected, which has accrued during the intervening
period of limitation, which may not be a case at
hand.
In that eventuality, the parties are agreed that
this C-482 Application may be decided finally.
Owing to the aforesaid grounds, and
particularly the ground, that the engagement of the
present applicant in the commission of offence is
concerned, all these aspects are better to be decided
on merits, which would be in the interest of both the
parties, rather than on technicality of limitation,
because the only view expressed by the Court in the
impugned order, that delay in precision has not
been assigned by the present applicant, may not be
an exclusive reason to reject the delay.
In view of the aforesaid, the C-482
Application is allowed.
The impugned order dated 27.09.2022, as
passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1081 of
2020, Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs.
Dr. Tej Partap, would hereby stand quashed. The
learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby directed to
decide the aforesaid Criminal Complaint case itself
on its merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not
later than eight months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 03.10.2023
Shiv
