Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Amar – 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 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.9880 of 2023
2. Since the instant case is barred by limitation of 1234 days and as such, the delay condonation application being I.A. No.9880 of 2023 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1234 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 and since, it was pending for its consideration in interlocutory application being I.A. No.3913 of 2018 which had been filed in W.P.(Cr.) No.211 of 2012.
4. It has been submitted that the said W.P.(Cr.) No.211 of 2012 was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.05.2023 without passing any order on I.A. No.3913 of 2018.
5. The present revision petition has been file
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 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 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 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 reaffirmed that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is essential to ensure substantial justice, allowing a non-pedantic approach to procedural matters.
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
