2008 (8) TMI 900 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition correct?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing and re-filing the Criminal Revision Petition.
2. Sufficiency of the cause for condoning the delay.
3. Examination of the merits of the case by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing and Re-filing the Criminal Revision Petition:

The appellant challenged the order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P.No.356/2004) due to inordinate delay in filing and re-filing. The respondent was apprehended based on allegations of being a member of a terrorist outfit and was subsequently discharged by the Addl. Sessions Judge due to lack of prima facie legal evidence. The appellant filed the revision petition along with an application for condoning the delay. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the delay was unexplained.

2. Sufficiency of the Cause for Condoning the Delay:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercising judicial discretion. The Court referred to several precedents, including *N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy* and *New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra*, which advocate a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to ensure substantial justice. The Court noted that the explanation for the delay, which involved procedural mishaps and bureaucratic delays, was plausible. The Court highlighted that the State should not be treated differently from private litigants in such matters, as public interest could suffer due to procedural delays.

3. Examination of the Merits of the Case by the High Court:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately address the explanations provided by the appellant for the delay. The High Court's summary rejection of the delay explanation was deemed incorrect. The Supreme Court underscored that the High Court should have examined the correctness of the explanation in light of established legal principles. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for a decision on merits, clarifying that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, condoning the delay, and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal on merits, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over technicalities.