2021 (9) TMI 963 - DSC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing petition - sufficient ground to condone the delay or not - Grant of default bail - It is the stand of the petitioner that only complaint was filed in the case and no final report/challan under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was filed - HELD THAT - There is no sufficient ground to condone the delay. - The impugned order was passed on 26.08.2019. This revision was filed on 03.02.2021. There is delay of 433 days in filing of this revision. The reason for delay as alleged in the application is that the petitioner was confined in jail in this case. He was released on 01.04.2020 and thereafter, this revision was filed. It is claimed that firstly the revision could not be filed because the revisionist was in custody. Secondly, when he was released on interim bail, there was spread of Covid virus. Perusal of trial court record reveals that the petitioner and his counsel were actively participating in the proceedings before learned trial court. So the delay in filing the revision appears to be deliberate and intentional. When the impugned order was passed, at that time there was spread of Covid Virus. So the petitioner cannot take any advantage of spread of Covid Virus subsequently. Even when the limitation expired, at that time also there was no spread of Covid Virus - No sufficient ground is made out to condone such a long delay in filing of this revision. So, delay cannot be legally condoned. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Condonation of delay in filing revision.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against an order by Learned CJM, Rohtak, where an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was held to be infructuous as the challan had already been received. The petitioner argued that since only a complaint was filed and no final report/challan under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted, default bail should be granted. The respondent contended that the application for default bail was time-barred. The court noted the delay in filing the revision and examined the reasons provided for the delay. The court found that the delay was not properly explained and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition as time-barred.

2. Regarding the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner cited being in custody and the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay in filing the revision. However, the court observed that the petitioner and his counsel were actively participating in the trial court proceedings and were aware of the impugned order. The court deemed the delay deliberate and intentional, stating that the spread of Covid-19 could not be used as an excuse for the delay. As a result, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition as time-barred. The court emphasized that there were no sufficient grounds to condone the lengthy delay in filing the revision, and hence, the revision petition was dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition due to the time-barred nature resulting from the failure to condone the delay in filing. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that deliberate delays cannot be legally condoned. The court directed the judgment copy to be sent back to the trial court and the revision file to be consigned to records after compliance.