Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) filed three criminal applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing criminal revision applications against orders passed by the trial court on 29th January 1999. The revision applications were instituted in the High Court on 26th February 2002, resulting in a delay of 2 years and 303 days as computed by the office. The MPSC explained that it had no knowledge of the trial court orders until it received a communication from the Government vide letter dated 19th November 2000. Thereafter, steps were taken to process the file, including tracing old documents, corresponding with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Investigation Department, and obtaining legal opinion from the Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. The Court, presided over by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, heard counsel for all parties. The Court examined the explanation offered in the applications and found that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The Court noted that the MPSC, being a public body, was expected to be diligent and could not claim ignorance of court orders for such a long period. The administrative delays in processing the file after November 2000 were also not adequately justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed all three applications for condonation of delay, thereby rejecting the prayer to condone the delay in filing the revision applications.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The applicant, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, sought condonation of delay of 2 years and 303 days in filing criminal revision applications against orders dated 29th January 1999. The Court held that the explanation offered, including lack of knowledge until November 2000 and subsequent administrative delays in tracing documents and obtaining legal opinion, did not constitute sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. The Court emphasized that the applicant, being a public body, must act with diligence and cannot claim ignorance of court orders indefinitely. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, and the applications were dismissed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 2 years and 303 days in filing the revision applications should be condoned on the grounds of lack of knowledge and administrative processing delays.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed all three applications for condonation of delay, thereby refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision applications.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
Case Details
Criminal Application No.825 of 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No.98 of 2002 with Criminal Application No.826 of 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No.99 of 2002 and Criminal Application No.827 of 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No.100 of 2002
Mr. R.V. More with Mr. Pratap V. Patil for the Applicant; Mr. K.V. Saste for the Respondent State of Maharashtra; Mr. A.D. Avhad & Mr. Shiva Patil for Respondent No.1 (Mr. Indrajeet Joshi with them); Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr. Prakash Naik for Respondent No.2 in Crl.Appln.No.825 of 2002, for Respondents Nos.4,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 in Crl.Appln.No.826 of 2002 & for Respondents Nos.3 to 9 and 11 in Crl.Appln.No.827 of 2002; Mr. N.B. Pawaskar for Respondents Nos.2,3 and 6 in Crl.Appln.No.826 of 2002 & for Respondents Nos.2,10,12,13 and 14 in Crl.Appln.827 of 2002.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Amrut Kisan Kalukhe @ Amrut Sarjerao Bajare and ors., etc.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Applications for condonation of delay in filing criminal revision applications.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of delay of 2 years and 303 days in filing revision applications against trial court orders.
Filing Reason
The applicant claimed lack of knowledge of the trial court orders until November 2000 and subsequent administrative delays in processing the file.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed orders on 29th January 1999 against which the revision applications were sought to be filed.
Issues
Whether the delay of 2 years and 303 days in filing the revision applications should be condoned.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant submitted that it had no knowledge of the trial court orders until communication from the Government on 19th November 2000, and thereafter steps were taken to process the file, including tracing documents and obtaining legal opinion.
Ratio Decidendi
The delay of 2 years and 303 days was not sufficiently explained. The applicant, being a public body, was expected to be diligent and could not claim ignorance of court orders for such a long period. The explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Judgment Excerpts
There is delay of 2 years and 303 days, as computed by the Office.
Explanation has been offered in the applications on affidavit.
According to the Applicant, the Applicant had no knowledge about the orders passed by the trial Court till communication was received from the Government vide letter dated 19th November 2000.
Procedural History
The trial court passed orders on 29th January 1999. The revision applications were filed in the High Court on 26th February 2002. The applicant filed three applications for condonation of delay, which were heard and dismissed by the High Court on 1st April 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397
