Sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay in filing legal petitions; courts should adopt a liberal approach while ensuring that procedural lapses do not prevent justice.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This is a petition filed to condone delay of 225 days in filing the revision petition.

2. The reasons for condoning the delay in a nutshell could be gathered from paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of this petition and the same are as follows:

“3. The Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Court below ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of the issuance of a certified copy of the impugned order. As per the existing Rules and Procedures, the order is to be perused and examined by the Investigating Officer of the case, the Additional Legal Advisor, who is in charge of the case. The Legal Adviser has advised to challenge the impugned order as per the remarks dated 6/10/2021. In turn the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Northern Range, Kozhikode has forwarded the request dated 25/10/2021 to Director, VACB to file appeal against the impugned order. Subsequently the Director, VACB has vide letter dated 9/11/2021 reques the Government for according order to file appeal against the impugned order. The Home and Vigilance Department which decides and issues order to file appeal against the impugned order.

4. In the case at hand, the Home and Vigilance Department has decided to prefer Revision Petition before Hon'ble High Court against the impugned order passed by the Court below, vide G.O (Rt) No.2421/2022/Home dated, Thiruvananthapuram 29/8/2022. Subsequently, the Government intimated the Government Order to the Director, VACB. The Director, VACB vide letter dated No.C11 (SJK) 4824/2011 dated 3/9/2022 directed the Superintendent of Police, Northern Range, Kozhikode to take further steps to file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Pursuant to the communication from the Director, VACB, the Superintendent of Police, VACB has directed me to entrust the entire file with the Advocate General, Kerala. I have entrusted the file with the Advocate General Office on 6/9/2022. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor who is in charge of the case has to pursue the Case Diary and the impugned order passed by the court below. The Public Prosecutor who in charge of the case has informed me that a certified copy of the impugned order is to be obtained from the court below. I applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on 06.08.2022 and obtained the same on 16.09.2022.”

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and objected condonation of delay. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent as on 23.10.2024, the genesis of the case has been narrated which started as early in the year 2006 and also non-explanation of the delay in proper form. Similarly, the 2^nd respondent also filed objection. That apart, additional statement also filed by the 1^st respondent. Today, at the time of argument, summarizing the contention, chronology of events after delivery of the impugned order also has been submitted by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

4. According to the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, even though the order in C.C.No.6/2011 was passed on 30.09.2021, the Director, Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, wrote a letter to Home Department seeking permission to file an appeal only on 09.11.2021. On 29.08.2022, the Home Department issued G.O. (Rt) No. 2421/2022/HOME, granting permission to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), to file an appeal against the order dated 30.09.2021 in C.C. No. 6/2011. Follow up action was recommended on 03.09.2022. Thereafter, on 06.09.2022, the deponent of the affidavit entrusted the file to the office of the Advocate General and applied for a certifie