DEVJIBHAI BALUBHAI KHANDVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>A.M.KAPADIA, J.</DJG> By filing the instant application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (`the Act', for short), applicant original complainant prays to condone delay of 251 days caused in filing the Criminal Misc. Application No. 4055 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 2010, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2009, rendered in Sessions Case No. 355 of 2006, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, by which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 original accused came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The reasons as to why the Appeal could not be filed in time are detailed in paragraph-3 of the application, which is supported by affidavit sworn by the complainant wherein, inter alia, it is pleaded that wife of the present applicant was bedridden and the Criminal Revision Application was filed by the applicant against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal which came to be withdrawn with a view to file this appeal because of the amended provisions under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, pleaded that there was sufficient cause which prevented the applicant in filing appeal in time. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned.

(3.) Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Darshan P. Kinariwala, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent No.1 State and as also Mr Bhunesh C. Rupera, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 original accused and a perusal of the averments made in the application, which have remained uncontroverted and the celebrated principles governing the discretionary exercise of power conferred under Section-5 of the Act as well as the reported decisions of the Supreme Court construing Section-5 of the Act liberally, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for not filing the Appeal in time. The record does not indicate that there was any inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the Appeal. The applicant has never abandoned the lis. The explanation offered by the applicant for condonation of delay is not only plausible but acceptable.