Subsequently, again this Court vide order dated 9.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2013 had directed for production of copies of deposition, seizure panchanama and C.A.Report Exhibit 54. Apparently those documents were filed before this Court in Criminal Application No.611 of 2012 on 12.2.2013 itself. I see no reason to disbelieve duly sworn testimony of Mr. C.R.Baviskar, Assistant Commissioner of Customs who has vouched about this aspect in paragraph 3 of the application for restoration of appeal. On this factual backdrop, it needs to be noted again that mistake of the Court should not prejudice anybody and, therefore, Criminal Appeal ought not to have been dismissed in default merely adhering to technicalities. Resultantly, the delay in filing an application for restoration gets sufficient explanation and amounts to 'sufficient cause'. The appeal deserves to be restored as primary function of the Court is to adjudicate dispute on its own merits rather than adhering to the technicalities of the procedure. Criminal Applications bearing Nos. 20 and 21 of 2016 are therefore allowed. The delay in filing application for restoration of the Criminal Appeal as well as application for restoration of the
