IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1599 of 2023 ==========================================================

MEET @ BHALO S/O VIMALKUMAR PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3 MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 05/07/2023

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR)

RULE. learned APP Mr.Hardik Soni waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.

The applicant-convict has filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 374 days caused in filing the captioned Criminal Appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2018.

Heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant-convict and learned APP appearing for the respondent – State.

Learned advocate for the applicant-convict submitted that due to financial crunches the applicant-convict could not file the appeal in time. Hence, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal. Therefore, he requested to allow the application and condone the delay caused in filing the appeal.

Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application.

Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the delay of 374 days caused in preferring the appeal not being inordinate, we are inclined to allow the present application and condone the delay.

It is needless to mention that the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rule of limitation is not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. The Court is aware of the fact that if delay is not condoned, it would amount to dismissal of the appeal at the threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the appellant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Even, the reasons stated appear to be bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant.

In view of the above, the delay of 374 days caused in preferring the appeal, as explained in para 2, is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

/MOINUDDIN