Prakashbhai Muljibhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat

Gita Gopi, J

This Application has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing of the above Criminal Revision Application.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a student and the complaint was given under the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Atrocities Act’), but the police failed to register a First Information Report. Therefore, a private complaint was filed but the learned Special Judge gave the enquiry to the same authority but declined to take the complaint. Thereafter, on the Report being filed, the Special Court, Jamnagar on 09.02.2023 rejected the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’). It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge though recorded the facts while rejecting the application however, has not taken into consideration the object of the Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that only after having knowledge of the rejection of the application, the applicant could take legal advice and make arrangements for funds to prefer the Criminal Revision Application and all these factors have contributed to the above delay.

In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under :-

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

"Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the subject matter of challenge requires decision on merits. Therefore, the present application is allowed and the delay of 25 days in filing of the Criminal Revision Application is condoned.