The court emphasized the distinction between an explanation and an excuse in applications for condonation of delay, highlighting that lack of diligence led to the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2024, whereby the 1^st Appellate Court has rejected an application for condonation of delay of 480 days filed alongwith an appeal preferred against judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.-III, Shimla in offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The petitioner/accused was convicted for offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.III on02.09.2022. The petitioner/accused had been sentenced vide order dated 22.09.2022 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,184/-.

3. The conviction and sentencing order had been passed in the presence of the accused. A copy of the judgment and sentencing order were supplied to the petitioner on 29.09.2022. The same had been supplied to her free of cost. At that particular point of time, the petitioner-accused was a convict.

4. Admittedly in the case at hand, the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days. The same commenced from 29.09.2022, on which date, the copy had been supplied to the petitioner/accused free of cost.

5. In the case at hand ‘Want of diligence’ or ‘inaction’ in filing the appeal is writ large despite having being provided with a copy of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence. In what cases can ‘Want of diligence’ or ‘inaction’ be attributed to an applicant it would be appropriate to refer to Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao , (2009) 11 SCC 183 :

“Want of ‘diligence’ or ‘inaction’ can be attributed to an appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent”.

6. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power available to courts. Exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned

7. The Court must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment reported as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India and Another, 2023 (10) SCC 531 . The relevant extract of the same are as under:

“…...Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

32. An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient c