JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the State of Gujarat is seeking quashing of the order dated 29.06.2013 passed below application Exh.7 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3459/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat which was filed by the applicant – State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal and to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal before the learned District Court.

[2.0] The respondents herein – accused came to be acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in connection with Criminal Case No.4691/2008 (Old Criminal Case No.3038/2004) for the offence under Sections 394, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 10.05.2010. The applicant – State preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal alongwith delay condonation application Exh.7 requesting to condone the delay of 891 days caused in preferring the appeal. The said application Exh.7 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order. Hence, present revision application is filed seeking quashment of order dismissing delay condonation application.

[3.0] Having heard learned APP for the applicant – State and learned advocate appearing for the respondents – accused and perusing the delay condonation application Exh.7, it appears that only in one paragraph the applicant sought condonation of huge delay of 891 days and nowhere it is stated as to for what reason delay has been caused and the only reason stated is that due to administrative reasons, such a delay of 891 days has been caused and letter dated 08.08.2012 from the Secretary to file an appeal was received by the ofÏce of District Government Pleader on 27.08.2012 still however, the application Exh.7 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge on 19.12.2012 i.e. after a delay of four months without any whisper or reason for the delay caused and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the delay condonation application.

[4.0] Perusing the record it appears that in absence of sufÏcient cause, learned Sessions Judge has properly exercised the discretion and rejected the delay condonation application which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Arunchandra Chhaganlal Shah reported in 2012(1) GLH 670 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By LRs. reported in 2025 INSC 53, wherein in paragraphs 16 and 17, it is observed and held as under:

“16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufÏcient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits