2013 (2) TMI 354 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing application for leave to appeal - Held that - Delay in this case is of 465 days, first delay is of 118 days when the appeal was originally filed and for this delay it is claimed that the advocate of the applicant at the trial court told the applicant that limitation for filing an appeal against acquittal is 180 days while it was 60 days. It is claimed that in this way there had been a delay of 118 days. The second delay is after filing of the appeal and rasing of the objections. Thereafter the delay is quite considerable i.e. of 347 days and surprisingly no reason is given as to how this delay of 347 days occurred. It is a case where virtually no cause is stated to explain the delay and there is nothing before this court to consider for deciding if the same is sufficient cause or not. As stricter approach is to be there in this case, because the delay is inordinate no reason worth the name on the record given by the applicant for holding that there had been sufficient cause for the delay - no ground to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing application for leave to appeal against a judgment dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

The judgment dealt with an application for condonation of delay in moving an application under section 378(4) for leave to appeal against a judgment dated 16.11.2009. The applicant sought condonation of a 465-day delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant claimed that the delay occurred due to misunderstanding regarding the limitation period for filing the appeal. Initially, the trial court's lawyer informed the appellant that the limitation was 180 days, while it was actually 60 days. The appeal was returned with objections, leading to the delay. The applicant argued that the delay was based on a bonafide belief and that there was no benefit in delaying the appeal. However, the respondent contended that the delay was inordinate and provided no valid reason for condonation.

The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, emphasizing the need for courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The court highlighted the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cause' in section 5 of the Act, allowing for a meaningful application of the law in the interest of justice. It was noted that a liberal approach should be adopted for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays.

The court analyzed the delay in two parts: an initial delay of 118 days due to misunderstanding the appeal filing deadline and a subsequent delay of 347 days without any explanation. As the applicant failed to provide a valid reason for the delay and no sufficient cause was presented, the court adopted a stricter approach due to the inordinate delay. Following the principles laid down in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd.'s case, the court concluded that there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, rendering the application for leave to appeal as barred by limitation and subsequently dismissed.