OM PURI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, by the accused, is directed against the order dated 18-10-2000 passed in an unregistered criminal appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Begumgan, Raisen, whereby he dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by two months of the prescribed period of limitation.

(2.) The trial Court convicted the applicant for offences under Sections 325/34 and 506, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- on both counts. The appellate Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by two months The appellate Court rejected the plea of the applicant that he fell sick and, therefore, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) It is a well settled principle of law that rules of. limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. Furthermore, the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situation is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. In this regard, I may also refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ramnath Sao v. Goberdhan Sao, AIR 2002 SC 1201 in which it has been held that expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. Earlier also, in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 it was held by the Supreme Court that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and 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 condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Supreme Court further held that 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. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical ground but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.