IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delays in legal proceedings can be condoned to ensure justice, and offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded with the consent of the aggrieved party.

ORDER :

Order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2024

1. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 2273 days caused in filing the application for legal heirs.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant states that since the original complainant is no more and the heirs have now made a prayer to join them as legal heirs and condoned the delay of 2273 days, stating that they were not having specific knowledge about the pendency of the case and only on information from the Advocate, after getting the pedigree executed, a prayer has been made to join them as parties by condoning the delay.

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, 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 sub-serves 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 con- doned 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 2273 days caused in filing the application for legal heirs is condoned. The application is allowed.

6. The application for legal heirs be listed today itself.

Order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2024

1. Advocate Mr. Chinmay Trivedi submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the legal heirs.

2. In view of the aforesaid, the present application for legal heirs is allowed. The heirs are permitted to be joined in Criminal Revision Application No. 84 of 2017. The necessary amendment be made accordingly.

Order in Criminal Revision Application

1. Advocate Mr. Chinmay Trivedi submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the legal heirs and seeks permission to file Vakalatnama. Permission to file Vakalatnma is granted; the same be t