The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a bona fide explanation for delay in filing an appeal, as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

(Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2022)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed with a delay of 2300 days, as per the report of the stamp reporter.

2. By means of present criminal appeal, the appellant/complainant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2014 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur, convicting and sentencing the respondents No. 2 to 6 under Sections 147/148/34, 325/149/34, 427/149/34, 436/427/34, 323/149/34 I.P.C. for a maximum punishment of five years with default stipulation in Session Trial No. 437 2007, arising out of Crime No. 134/2002 relating to Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur and acquitting them from the charges framed against them under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C.

3. Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the criminal spirited persons in which Basant Lal, Arvind Pandey, Shobha Ram Pandey and Amrit Lal Pandey have criminal history and they are likely to create disturbance in the peaceful living of the appellant, due to which the family of the appellant is in fear. He further submits that the appellant is waiting for appeal preferred about the inadequacy of sentence but no such appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that this appeal has been filed with delay of 2300 days without giving any proper explanation regarding delay.

6. On the query made by this court and the objection raised by the learned A.G.A.-I , learned counsel for the appellant/applicant could not be able to give any proper and satisfactory explanation regarding a long delay of 2300 days in filing this appeal nor any ground has been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.

7. The explanation given in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is neither acceptable nor trustworthy.

8. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

9. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said:

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

10. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixe