IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-923-2024 State of Punjab ....Applicant/Appellant V/s Jaswinder Kaur @ Ghukkar ....Respondent Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Date of uploading: 19.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-20021-2024

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- State seeking condonation of delay of 225 days in filing the accompanying revision. The main revision has been filed impugning the order dated

29.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Sangrur.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of the prayer for condonation of delay of 225 days, has argued that the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for by the office of the District Attorney, Sangrur on 29.05.2023 and was received from the Copying Branch on 29.07.2023, whereupon the limitation to file the revision was available up to 26.10.2023. After receipt of the certified copy within limitation, the learned District Attorney, Sangrur accorded approval on 09.08.2023 for filing the criminal revision and forwarded the case on

10.08.2023 to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Additional Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, for a final decision. Learned State counsel further submits that the Director, Prosecution and Litigation concurred with the opinion tendered by the learned District Attorney and forwarded the matter to the Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Judicial Branch-II), Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, for grant of sanction. The file thereafter remained under consideration in the said Department, and the requisite sanction for filing the criminal revision was ultimately accorded on 09.11.2023. It is further submitted that the matter was thereafter examined at multiple levels for legal opinion, including by the learned Law Officer, Senior Deputy Advocate General, and the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who, upon consideration of the entire record, opined that it was a fit case for filing a criminal revision. Certain objections were thereafter raised, which necessitated correspondence with the concerned department and compliance therewith. Upon completion of all procedural formalities, preparation and vetting of affidavits, and drafting of grounds, the present criminal revision has been filed. Learned State counsel submits that the delay in filing the present criminal revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred on account of the procedural movement of the file through various statutory and administrative channels. No prejudice is caused to the respondent, whereas grave prejudice would be caused to the State in case the delay is not condoned. It has been argued by learned counsel that due to the procedural requirements as detailed above, a delay of 225 days occurred, which was purely procedural and circumstantial. It has further been submitted that the delay was not attributable to any intentional negligence or lack of diligence but rather resulted from the extensive procedural requirements and formalities inherent in the process of obtaining the necessary sanction. It is, thus, submitted that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the instant revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate, and hence, deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned State counsel for the applicant-appellant and have perused the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRR(F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of