2024 Supreme(Cal) 516

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
Binod Kumar Maheswari & Ors. - Opposite Parties
IA No. CRAN 1 of 2022, CRMSPL No. 50 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2024

The principle of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially regarding government bodies, without undue strictness on procedural delays.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Special leave petition filed by the CBI seeking condonation of 1452 days delay in filing appeal against acquittal of accused in a fraud case involving Canara Bank of Rs. 2.19 crores - The principle of 'sufficient cause' is evaluated liberally to advance justice; mere lapse in obtaining approvals or delays due to bureaucratic procedures is insufficient for condonation unless demonstrated with bona fides. (Paras 2, 12, 29, 42)

Facts of the case:
CBI sought to appeal against an acquittal order issued on allegations of fraud against the Canara Bank, possessing significant delays due to bureaucratic inefficiency and external factors such as lockdowns during COVID-19. Approval processes within the CBI took excessive time contributing to prolonged delays before filing the appeal.

Findings of Court:
Despite acknowledging the slow pace of governmental decisions and bureaucratic delays, the court emphasized a balance between diligence and public interest. The delay was ultimately condoned with the court focusing on the need to ensure that substantial justice prevails.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the delay of 1452 days in filing a special leave petition could be condoned under the 'sufficient cause' standard without imposing undue technical barriers against a governmental body.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court noted that the CBI's procedural delays, although significant, justified a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in the light of COVID-19 impediments and the inherent sluggishness of governmental processes. The court reaffirmed that delays attributable to bureaucracy do not erase the importance of timely judicial recourse unless misconstrued as deliberate or mala fide.

Result: Delay is condoned; petition allowed.