Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Bindu Kumar Mehta, filed a criminal application under Section 487 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the order dated 5.8.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which rejected his application for condonation of delay in filing a revision application against the order of issuance of process. The applicant contended that the lower court erred by not considering that he had given a sufficient explanation for the delay, and that the court should have favored substantial justice over technicalities. The applicant had previously filed a quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC, which was dismissed, and thereafter he filed a revision application with a delay. The High Court observed that the lower court had not properly appreciated the explanation for delay, which included the applicant's bona fide pursuit of a wrong remedy. The court held that when cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are against each other, the side of substantial justice should be taken. The impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the revision application was directed to be restored to its original number for hearing on merits. The court also directed the lower court to decide the revision application expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 487 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing revision against issuance of process, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court held that when cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the side of substantial justice should prevail. The court found that the applicant had given sufficient cause for delay, including pursuing a wrong remedy bona fide, and that the lower court had not properly considered the explanation. The impugned order was set aside and delay condoned. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing a revision application against the order of issuance of process, and whether the High Court can interfere under Section 487 of CrPC.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.8.2014 is set aside. The delay in filing the revision application is condoned. The revision application is restored to its original number and directed to be heard and decided on merits expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 487 of Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- substantial justice over technicalities
- bona fide pursuit of wrong remedy
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 103
Criminal Application (APL) No.546 of 2014
Mr. S.Y. Deopujari for Applicant, Mr. S.M. Bhagde for Non-applicant No.1, Mr. A.T. Purohit for Non-applicant No.2
State of Maharashtra, Vinod s/o. Vitthaldas Saraf
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 487 of CrPC challenging rejection of condonation of delay in filing revision against order of issuance of process.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought setting aside of the order dated 5.8.2014 rejecting condonation of delay and restoration of the revision application.
Filing Reason
The applicant's application for condonation of delay in filing revision was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
Previous Decisions
The applicant had earlier filed a quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision application with delay, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 5.8.2014.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 487 of CrPC with the order rejecting condonation of delay?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the lower court should have favored substantial justice over technicalities and that sufficient cause for delay was shown, including bona fide pursuit of a wrong remedy.
The non-applicants opposed the application, but their specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
When cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the side of cause of substantial justice should be taken by the courts, as the very object of judicial system is to remove injustice. The court must consider whether the applicant has given an explanation indicating sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and if so, condone the delay to allow the matter to be heard on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
When cause of substantial justice and technical considerations are up against each other, side of cause of substantial justice should be taken by the Courts, as the very object of judicial system is to remove injustice.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have seen as to whether the applicant had given explanation thereby indicating sufficient cause for exercising his power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which he did not and, therefore, the impugned order is absolutely illegal and perverse.
Procedural History
The applicant was issued process in a criminal case. He filed a quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision application against the order of issuance of process, but with delay. He filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 5.8.2014. The applicant then filed the present application under Section 487 of CrPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 487
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
