ATUL VISHNUBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:
MR. JAVED S QURESHI for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR. RAHUL K RAJPUT for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. RULE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 18/02/2019 IA ORDER
1. Though rule is served to respondent no.2, none appears. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act" for brevity) has been preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 59 days caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application against the order dated 10.04.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2015.
2. Reasons for delay caused in preferring the revision application are narrated in para 6 of the application. As such learned advocate appearing for the opponents does not controvert or challenge any of the reasons/explanations stated in the aforesaid para of the application by filing any reply on oath.
3. The words, "Sufficient cause for not making application within the period of limitation" should be applied in a Page 1 of 2 R/CR.RA/1105/2018 IA ORDER reasonable and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the type of the case. The expression "sufficient cause" in section 5 of the Act needs liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any negligence or inaction or want of bona fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. In nutshell, the decisive factor for condonation of delay is not length of delay but sufficiency and satisfactory explanation. Since there is nothing on record so as to infer inaction or want of bona fide that can be attributed to the applicant, the applicant cannot be non-suited at threshold and thus, cannot be deprived of substantial justice which has been made available to the applicant by way of statutory revision application. In order to advance substantial justice to the applicant and as the explanation for delay does not smack mala fide, the delay caused in preferring the revision application is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(S.H.VORA, J) SATISH Page 2 of 2