Course Of Justice Ought To Be Advanced & Mere Technicalities Shouldn’t Impede Justice: Sikkim HC On Condonation Of Delay
The Sikkim High Court condoned the delay of 388 days in filing a criminal appeal and observed that the course of justice ought to be advanced and mere technicalities ought not to impede the path of justice.
The Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed, “In my considered opinion, there does not seem to be gross negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the Revisionists. The circumstances were not in their favour. The course of justice ought to be advanced and mere technicalities ought not to impede the path of justice…In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the delay has been explained with sufficient cause which accordingly deserves to be considered and condoned.”
Senior Advocate Jorgay Namka appeared for the Revisionists whereas GA SK Chettri appeared for the Respondent.
A criminal revision was filed impugning the order passed by the Sessions Judge by which an application seeking condonation of delay of 388 days in filing a criminal appeal was dismissed by the court. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the revisionists in a case arising for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Revisionists submitted that the delay was caused as they were unable to engage a private counsel.
The Court held, “These circumstances are mitigating circumstances in their favour, apart from which it has to be observed that the Revisionists are also entitled to legal Counsel of their choice. If they are not satisfied with the services of a Legal Aid Counsel and they seek to engage a private Counsel the Courts cannot stand in their way, in their quest for justice as they perceive it.”
The Court relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Ors. v. Union Of India (2023) and said that while summarising the position of law on “sufficient cause” observed that there is no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its Counsel.
However, the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay, the Court emphasized.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay.
Cause Title: Bidhan Trikhatri and Ors. v. State of Sikkim
Appearances:
Revisionists: Senior Advocate Jorgay Namka
Respondent: GA SK Chettri
