A liberal approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of The Limitation Act requires a reasonable explanation; mere administrative delays are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

CRM-4370-2019

1. The present application has been filed on the behalf of the applicant-State seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugned the judgement of acquittal dated 21.03.2018 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chandigarh, whereby the respondent (herein) (juvenile at the time of the alleged incident) was acquitted of the charges (notice of accusation) framed against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 173 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as by the time the certified copy of the impugned judgement dated 21.03.2018, alongwith other relevant case documents was received at the office of the undersigned Public Prosecutor, the statutory period for filling the instant revision petition on behalf of the State had already expired. According to the learned counsel, after the assignment of the instant case, despite multiple reminders issued by the office of the undersigned, the necessary documents, including witness statements and evidence, were eventually gathered by the concerned Police official and handed over to the Additional Public Prosecutor. Subsequently the memorandum of revision was drafted to initiate the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-State has further argued that delay was not due to any intentional negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical delay. It has been iterated by the learned counsel that effort has been made to ensure that all procedural steps were followed diligently on account of which delay of 173 days has caused and the same was purely circumstantial. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filling the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-State and have perused the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgement of this Court passed in CRR (F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8. As a sequel to above-said discussion the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice . The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned.

II. A Court to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant.

III. It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration Court.

IV. Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on ‘day to day basis’ for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approa