The court established that delays in legal proceedings can be condoned for substantial justice, and offenses under the NI Act can be compounded with the consent of the aggrieved party.

ORDER :

Gita Gopi, J.

Order in Criminal Misc. Application

1. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 109 days caused in filing the revision application.

2. Ms. Tanaveer K.Loladia, learned advocate for the applicant states that delay of 109 days occurred to challenge the order of the courts below, as the applicant was facing financial crunch and after making arrangement for funds and taking legal advise, she could prefer the revision application.

3. Learned APP for the respondent State submitted that though each day delay has not to be explained, but sufficient explanation is required to be placed on record for consideration of the Court, and, thus urged to reject the application.

4. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

5. In view of the principle laid down in the above referred judgment and considering the averments made in the application and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the matter requires decision on merits. Hence, delay of 109 days caused in filing the revision application is condoned. The application is allowed.

6. Let the main revision application be listed today itself.

Order in Revision Application

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Tanaveer K.Loladia for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Ishan H.Rajdev for respondent no.2 - original complainant.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State and Mr. Ishan H.Rajdev, learned advocate waives service of notice Rule on behalf of the respondent no.2. By consent Rule is fixed forthwith.

3. By way of this application, the applicant – revisionist challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.10818 of 2017, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which came to be confirmed by order