2008 (11) TMI 410 - HC - Customs

Restoration of appeal limitation - delay of 5215 days in filing restoration application Criminal Revision was dismissed on account of the non removal of office objections Held that - non-explanation of the delay condontion of delay cannot be acceded Application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay of 5185 days in filing restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
The applicant sought condonation of a 5185-day delay in filing a restoration application for Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1990. The applicant's husband, the original accused in a criminal case, was convicted under the Customs Act. The revision application was dismissed due to the advocate's failure to remove office objections. The applicant claimed that her husband's lawyer did not inform them about key court orders leading to the dismissal. The applicant, upon learning about the dismissal, filed the restoration application after a delay of 5215 days. The applicant argued that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake and her husband's illness, leading to his death. The applicant's advocate cited various judgments to support the request for condonation based on a liberal view towards genuine mistakes.

The respondent contested that the delay was inadequately explained, particularly regarding the period after the cancellation of bail bonds. The respondent argued that the delay explanation did not justify condonation, emphasizing that the co-accused's pending revision application did not impact the delay explanation for the main matter. The respondent urged for the application's dismissal due to the lack of sufficient grounds for condonation.

The court considered both parties' arguments and reviewed the facts of the case. The court noted the applicant's claim of being unaware of the dismissal due to her husband's lawyer's failure to communicate crucial information. However, the court found that the delay from the date of bail bond cancellation to the husband's death was not adequately explained. Despite the applicant's plea for condonation based on the pending co-accused's revision application, the court emphasized the necessity of explaining all delays. The court concluded that without a proper explanation for the delays, the request for condonation could not be granted. The court rejected the application, discharging the rule.

In conclusion, the court denied the condonation of the 5215-day delay in filing the restoration application due to insufficient explanation for the delays. Despite citing relevant judgments advocating a liberal view towards genuine mistakes, the court emphasized the need for a thorough explanation of all delays, ultimately leading to the rejection of the application.