Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Kewal Singh Kang S/o Gurucharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1.Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 15.07.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Cr. Misc. Case No.24/2019 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application preferred by the appellants under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
2. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 1994 days. The appellants have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order was passed by the court below on 15.07.2019 but the appellants could not approach the local counsel within time as they were busy in earning livelihood of the family and when they approached the counsel, they came to know about the impugned order passed by the trial court. It is argued that subsequently, in the month of January, 2020, corona pandemic spread in all over the world and therefore, the appellants could not file the appeal against the impugned order. Thereafter, the appellant No.3 suffered from life threatening disease of Hepatitis C and he is still under continuous observation of the Doctors. Counsel submits that the delay in f
The court ruled that a delay of 1994 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned due to lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
The court emphasized that ignorance of a court order due to counsel's negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.
The court confirmed that being in jail constitutes sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, parties mus....
The court emphasized that a significant delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient to justify such delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
