STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. AHMED JAAN

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 28

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Case summary

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) v. AHMED JAAN.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 12 S. C. R. 28 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V. AHMED JAAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2008) AUGUST 12, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Limitation Act, 1963: . s. 5 - Condonation of delay - "sufficient cause" - HELD: It is sufficiency of the cause. which counts, and not length of delay - Expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction - As regards delay on the part of State, certain amount of latitude is not. impermissible - Expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's "' be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid oy the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause.

The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examin~ the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. f,- In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an ~ appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. ~,, 15. The above position was highlighted in State ofHaryana .... v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996 (3) SCC 132); Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kera/a v. K.

V Ayisumma (1_996 (10) sec 634) and State of Nagaland v. ·upok AO and Ors. (2005 (3) sec 752). It was noted that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay ~ in the process of filing an appeal. 16. We find that the appellant had indicated the reasons for the delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition. The High Court unfortunately did not deal with those explanations and merely stated that the delay has not been explained. The High Court was required to examine the correctness of the explanation given, keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court . in several cases. According to us, the explanations offered were plausible and deserved to be accepted. Accordingly, we set ... aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the mat- . ~ -. ter to it to hear the Criminal Revision on merits. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. 17.

The appeal is allowed. R. P. Appeal allowed.