BAL KRISHNA DHAMALA Vs. MALA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Application impugns the order dated 30.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2017 passed by the learned Session Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, by which while issuing notice on the Appeal preferred, the learned Session Judge also disposed of an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 110 days in preferring the Appeal.

(2.) Way back in 1966, the Apex Court in re: Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta, 1966 AIR(SC) 529 held that a result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not. The laws of limitation is founded on public policy with the aim of securing peace, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. When the statutory period of limitation runs out a right enures in favour of the opposite party.

(3.) Admittedly, while allowing the application for condonation of delay, the learned Session Judge did not hear the petitioner against whom the Appeal had been preferred by the respondent before the learned Session Court. The petitioner had been relieved of the accusation of domestic violence alleged by the respondent in D.A.V Case No. 05/2014.