The applicant must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for filing delays beyond the limitation period, which mere bureaucratic processes often do not satisfy.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Appeal against judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, in Case No.4/3 of 2001/98 titled Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank Limited vs. M/s Himachal Aluminium Company Ltd.

2. It is apt to record that, as on date, respondent No.1- Company is not in existence, however, respondent No.2-Bhag Chand Jain, on the basis of record, has been found to be acting as Director of the Company, at the relevant point of time, i.e. on the date of alleged commission of the offence and, therefore, it has been observed by this Court that presence of Bhag Chand Jain would be sufficient for adjudicating the present matter.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that in present case, on the basis of wrong advice, an appeal against order of acquittal dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Solan, whereas, as per the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, the same was to be filed before this High Court. It has been further submitted that on realising the mistake, the appeal preferred before Sessions Judge, Solan, was withdrawn on 02.11.2017 for filing the same before Competent Court of law as evident from order dated 02.11.2017 passed Additional Sessions Judge, placed on record with this application.

4. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that certified copy of order dated 02.11.2017 was applied on 03.11.2017, which was attested on 12.01.2018, but was delivered on 20.02.2018, and thereafter, matter was submitted to Head Office for legal opinion, and after obtaining the illegal opinion, it was decided to prefer an appeal before this High Court against judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan. Accordingly, appeal has been preferred along with this application for condonation of delay, after obtaining certified copy of the impugned order against judgment of acquittal.

5. It is apt to record that certified copy of order of the Trial Court was applied on 18.01.2019, which was attested on 19.01.2019 and was delivered on 01.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that though there is delay of 4 years 4 months and 24 days, however, the time spent in pursuing the appeal before the wrong Court, deserves to be condoned, in view of provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act and rest of the delay has been duly explained, as intervening time was spent in seeking legal opinion and approval for filing appeal, because appellant/applicant is a Bank and before approval matter has been dealt with by various levels by different persons and this cumbersome exercise consumed almost one year after withdrawal of appeal from Sessions Court, and therefore delay deserves to be condoned.

7. Learned counsel for the appearing respondents has submitted that from the averments made in the application and details narrated by learned counsel for the applicant, no sufficient cause had been made out, at least from February 2018 till January 2019, and it is a case of grave negligence, but not of sufficient cause, which prevented the filing of appeal within imitation period.

8. The appeal preferred before the Session Court was withdrawn on 02.11.2017, copy whereof was applied on 03.11.2017 and attested on 12.01.2018. It is evident from the copy of order that the appeal was withdrawn to file appeal before Competent Court of law and therefore, there was no doubt to the applicant