The court should take a liberal view while considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but this does not mean that all such applications should be allowed. The court should exercise its discretion judicially to arrive at a finding regarding the sufficiency of cause.

( 1 ) THE present revisional application has been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. So the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is taken up first for disposal in presence of the learned Advocates of the respective parties.

( 2 ) IT appears that the present O. P. No. 2 who was a Sub-Assistant Engineer, was made accused in Kalyani P. S. Case No. 21/99 dated 1. 3. 99 under Sections 468/469/471/420/120-8, I. P. C. Allegation in the F. I. R. was that the present O. P. No. 2 taking advantage of his position as Sub-Assistant Engineer of Kalyani Municipality entered into a criminal conspiracy with his wife Chandana Chatterjee and committed forgery, cheating and preparation of false documents.

( 3 ) ON completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted by the police on 14. 2. 2000 against the accused Chandana Chatterjee under Section 468/469/471/474/420/120b of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating agency recommended discharge of the accused opposite party No. 2 Sambhunath Chatterjee on the ground that there was no direct evidence against the said accused.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of learned S. D. J. M. , Kalyani on 3. 3. 2000 and on the same day the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in respect of accused Chandana Chatterjee and discharged the accused Sambhunath Chatterjee, i. e. , the present O. P. No. 2. But, such order of discharge was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner who is the de facto complainant in the present case.

( 5 ) THE present petitioner being the de facto complainant thereafter filed an application in the form of a Naraji petition on 5. 4. 2000 with a prayer for taking cognizance of offence against the accused Shambunath Chatterjee (present O. P. No. 2 ). The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 5. 4. 2000 rejected such petition only on the ground that since the cognizance of offence was taken and accused O. P. No. 2 was discharged by the learned S. D. J. M-in-Charge by his order dated 3. 3. 2000, the learned S. D. J. M. being on the same chair had no jurisdiction to alter, modify or set aside the said order of discharge by entertaining a Naraji petition filed by the de facto complainant. Challenging such order dated 5. 4. 2000 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Kalyani the present revisional application has been preferred in this Court with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 6 ) MR. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present case the impugned order was passed on 5. 4. 2000. Certified copy of the said order was applied for on 6. 4. 2000, which was obtained on 17. 4. 2000. The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that being the Chairman of the Municipality the petitioner could not contract his lawyer due to forthcoming Municipal election which was held on 28th May, 2000. Apart from this, due to summer vacation this Court was closed for a period of two weeks from 22. 5. 2000 to 5. 6. 2000. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate points out that being the Chairman of the Kalyani Municipality the petitioner was reelected as the New Chairman of the Board and he assumed his charge as the Chairman on 27th June, 2000. The learned Advocate further submits that the relevant papers along with the certified copy of the impugned order was handed over to the learned Advocate for setting the instant petition. But, unfortunately during the 2nd week of July, 2000 the certified copy of the impugned order dated 5. 4. 2000 which was necessary to accompany the instant application was misplaced from chamber of the learned lawyer. Such certified copy was subsequently found out on 29th July. 2000. Thereafter, the present revisional application was filed in this Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Although in the application under S