Condonation of delay requires a demonstration of "sufficient cause"; ignorance of law, negligence of counsel, or lack of diligence does not constitute sufficient cause, as the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure finality in litigation.

Order on Board

30.01.2 026

1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 62 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed the present criminal revision before this Hon’ble Court seeking its consideration and indulgence. It is submitted that the applicant is a government servant who has been diligently and honestly discharging his

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

ofÏcial duties and, being unaware of the technicalities of law, could not file the present criminal revision within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay occurred on account of bona fide reasons, as the local counsel engaged by the applicant failed to apprise him of the statutory period of limitation, and the same was neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the applicant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. The applicant, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay and thereafter be graciously pleased to hear and decide the present criminal revision on merits.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the explanation furnished by the applicant for condonation of delay is vague, casual and wholly unsatisfactory. The plea that the applicant is a government servant and was unaware of the law or that the local counsel failed to inform him about the period of limitation does not constitute a sufÏcient or valid ground for condoning the delay, as ignorance of law or alleged negligence of counsel cannot be a justification for such lapse. The applicant has failed to explain the delay in a day-to-day manner and has not disclosed any compelling or unavoidable circumstance preventing him from approaching this Hon’ble Court within limitation. The application lacks bona fides and has been filed only to protract the proceedings and delay the execution of the impugned order. The respondent, therefore, prays that the application for condonation of delay be rejected, and consequently the revision petition itself be dismissed as barred by limitation.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant criminal revision.

5. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 62 days in preferring the present revision petition deserves to be condoned or not.

6. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary , 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufÏcient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi , 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram , 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of