HARSHESHBAHI KANUBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Ld. APP Mr. Pandya for the respondent State. With the consent of Ld. counsel appearing; for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner is original accused No.6 of Criminal Case No. 1/2001 pending in the Court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and he is asked to face charge of the offences punishable under Sections 465. 467. 468. 471, 420 and 420-B of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner moved an application Exh.7 under Sections 227 & 228 of Cr. PC before Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate praying discharge, stating that he is not guilty of any of the offences for which he has been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer. The say of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly implicated in the offence otherwise he is a young Chartered Accountant and on the contrary the Investigating Agency probably could have named him as one of the witnesses in favour of the prosecution instead of prosecuting him. However. Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 25.10.2002. rejected the said application exh.7. The petitioner was contemplating to challenge the order of rejection of the application before appropriate forum but because of reasons beyond control he could not do it, is the say of the petitioner before this Court. It is submitted by Ld. counsel Patel for the petitioner that petitioner had approached the Sessions Court by moving Revision Application under Sec.397 of Cr. PC challenging the impugned order dated 25.10.2002 passed by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, However, as that Cri . Rev. Application was filed after period of limitation i.e. after expiry of 90 days, the application for condonation of delay was also simultaneously preferred. The application for condonation of delay preferred by the petitioner was registered in the Court of Ld. City & Sessions Court. Ahmedabad as Cri. Misc. Application No.484/2003. When the aforesaid application was listed for hearing before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.9. Ahmedabad. after hearing submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.3.2003, dismissed said application by rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay, for the reasons assigned in the order under challenge.

(3.) According to Id. counsel Mr. Patel for the petitioner, the order passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge is erroneous and contrary to the accepted proposition of law. The approach of the Court should be pragmatic and liberal when the Court is put to notice of sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act and it is not obligatory on the part of the applicant to explain the delay of each day.