Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through CBI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.)
1. The instant application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), assailing the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for discharge from criminal prosecution in connection with R.C.03(A)/2011-R, has been rejected.
I.A. No.9879 of 2023
2. Since the instant revision petition is barred by limitation of 1233 days and as such, the delay condonation application being I.A. No.9879 of 2023 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1233 days in filing the instant petition.
3. The reason has been explained at paragraph-4 of the instant application showing therein that the cause has been said to be sufficient in not approaching the Court by challenging the order impugned dated 05.03.2018, since, it was pending for its consideration in interlocutory application being I.A. No.6699 of 2018, which had been filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012.
4. It has been submitted that the said interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. No.6699 of 2018 was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012 and the petitioner wa
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing a revision petition must not involve negligence, and reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for matters already adj....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay must be interpreted liberally, but revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for issues already adjudicated by a coordinate bench.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing a genuine and substantiated reason for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and highlights the need for partie....
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a bona fide motive and sufficient cause for delay condonation, highlighting that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when....
The principle that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a party can demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay, with negligence or lack of bona fides being significant factor....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay under the Limitation Act must be established, aligning government entities with private litigants regarding the standards for delay condonation.
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
