Dwarika Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This Revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57/2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kabirdham (Kawardha) has allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning the delay of 11 days in filing of the Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.

Shri Bharat, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the certified copy of the judgment is delivered to the Public Prosecutor on the date of passing of the judgment i.e. 10.01.2018 itself and as such there was no occasion to apply for another certified copy of the same. The State has filed the Appeal with delay which was not properly explained and the said delay caused was deliberate and not bona fide, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the Revision may be allowed.

On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Counsel for the State supported the order impugned and submits that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay and the order passed by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference invoking revisional jurisdiction.

It is settled law that generally the courts including Supreme Court adopt a liberal approach in considering application for condonation of delay on ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Though Section 5 of the Act envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court and makes no distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependent on the action of its officials, who often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases. The said principle is laid down in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 419.

Reverting back to the facts of the present case as depicted in the impugned order and the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for condonation of delay and taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Others (supra) while dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Court below warranting the revisoinal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the instant Revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.