A minimal delay in filing an appeal against conviction should be condoned to ensure substantial justice. Dismissing an appeal at the threshold on technical grounds without merit review is improper, and the requirement of surrender for revision is inapplicable when the appellate court has not adjudicated the merits.

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the revisionist under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). This revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed in MJCR No. 148/2026 by the learned IInd Additional Session Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam. By way of the impugned order, the learned Session Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner strictly on the ground of a 12-day limitation delay, thereby refusing to condone the delay and declining to hear the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the original judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed in SCNIA/153/2022 by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaora, District Ratlam, convicting the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment along with a compensation deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- with 6% interest, was upheld.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the present revision is that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the trial Court regarding the dishonor of a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- due to "insufficient funds".

After the conclusion of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate, Jaora, convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 30.01.2026, sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment and directing the deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation along with 6% interest within three months. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Session Judge, Jaora. However, the said appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved alongside the appeal, citing the petitioner's rural background, ignorance of the limitation period, and intervening Court holidays as reasons for the delay. The learned Session Court, vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, dismissed the Section 5 application at the threshold without hearing the appeal on its merits.

CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST

3. The revisionist contends that the impugned order is contrary to settled principles governing the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Learned Sessions Court has erred in law in adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic approach while rejecting the application for condonation of delay of merely 12 days, disregarding the settled principle that the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

4. The revisionist further submitted that refusal to condone short delay defeats the right to appeal and causes grave miscarriage of justice. The dismissal of the appeal by the learned Court below, at the threshold without adjudication on merits has resulted in denial of the statutory right of appeal, which is a valuable right available to the accused.

5. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the delay was bonafide and sufficiently explained. The petitioner had clearly explained that he belongs to a rural background, was unaware of the limitation period, and was also prevented due to intervening Court holidays. These reasons constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. The revisionist argues that the learned Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The learned Sessions Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner by not properly appreciating the reasons given in the application under Section 5 and by rejecting it mechanically without recording cogent reasons. In quasi-criminal matters like N.I. Act, a liberal approach is required to ensure a fair trial and justice, and Courts are required to lean in favor of adjudication on merits.

7. It is further submitted that the impugned order results in failure of justice and abuse of p