The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and its application in condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. Petitioner claiming to be a senior citizen invoked provision of Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) by filing a special leave petition to file appeal against the order of discharge of the opposite party (for short O.P) herein passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore on 30.03.2023.

2. Petitioner initiated a criminal proceeding on complaint against O.P herein who is a Public Officer before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore who, in turn, transferred the same to the Ld. 6th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore where O.P filed one application for discharge on the ground of non –compliance of the provision of Section 197 of CrPC. Ld. Magistrate rejected the same and opposite party assailed the order of rejection before the court of Ld. Session Judge, Alipore by filing a criminal motion being no. 259 of 2022 which was then transferred to the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore.

3. The said criminal motion was disposed of by an order of discharge of the O.P from the criminal proceeding being AC case no 1505 of 2020 and as a sequel order of Ld. Magistrate was set aside.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in criminal motion no. 259 of 2022 the instant petition seeking special leave to appeal has been preferred invoking the provision of Section 378 (4) but along with an application for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing special leave to appeal.

5. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application (CRAN 1 of 2023) cause of delay in filing leave has been explained.

6. In the petition it was pleaded that the appellant being a senior citizen, was suffering from fever, cough and cold due to infection and the doctor advised him to take rest. As a result, the appellant did not contact his advocate and hence there was a delay of 20 days for filing special leave to appeal.

7. Further by filing an affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition submitted by the respondents/opposite party,petitioner pleaded that he was suffering from high diabetes with secondary infection and pus and for that very reason he could not contact his advocate during his period of illness. The petitioner in support of his pleading also annexed a medical certificate dated 30.06.2023 which is marked as annexure "A".

Argument Advanced:-

8. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Subir Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the delay explained in both the applications with a prayer for condonation of delay as well as affidavit in reply are the same and there was no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner as he was restrained to file leave petition within the statutory period by an unavoidable circumstances.

9. Before parting with it is submitted that the Court should pry into the track of liberal approach in condoning delay to advance substantial justice.

10. In support of his contention, Mr. Banerjee relied on the following cases:-

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. MST. Katiji and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107

Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685

Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 450

Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649

11. In opposition to that, Mr. Dipanjan Dutta appearing on behalf of the opposite party has confronted the explanation made in the petition for condonation of delay on the following ground:-

The statement made by the petitioner in the petition for the condonation of delay was not substantiated by any medical prescription which in accordance to law of limitation cannot be said to be a sufficient cause. Whereas the cause of delay stated by the petitioner in the affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the O.P are absolutely different to that of the CRAN application which clearly indicates t