Dismissed

Ut of Chandigarh v. Madan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2013CRM-A/809/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application for condonation of a 356-day delay in filing a leave to appeal under section 482 Cr.P.C. held that such substantial delay requires a detailed and reasonable explanation, which was absent in the application.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was dismissed; consequently, the application for leave to appeal was barred by limitation and dismissed.

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Madan Lal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl.Misc.No.A-809-MA of 2011 --1--

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Misc.No.A-809-MA of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 08.01.2013

¶4

State of U.T., Chandigarh

¶5

..... Applicant-Appellant

Versus

Madan Lal

..... Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the applicant-complainant.

¶11

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK J.

¶12

For condonation of delay in moving application under section 378(3) for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 07.06.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, the applicant has moved application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay of 356 days.

¶13

The only plea taken in the application besides making submission that the appeal is likely to succeed on the

¶14

Crl.Misc.No.A-809-MA of 2011 --2--

¶15

grounds taken in the grounds of appeal is that the delay of 356 days has occurred in procuring the documents. It is further averred that without causing any further delay, the appeal has been filed and that the delay is neither intentional nor wilful but due to bonafide reasons.

¶16

Delay in filing the appeal or application for leave to appeal has to be condoned considering the facts of each case. The question involved in condonation of delay is a question of fact and has to be considered with reference to the plea made out by the applicant. At least a plea for condonation of delay should be detailed one where reasonable explanation should be given for the delay.

¶17

Government organization, as the applicant before me is, is entitled to some latitude in this regard for the reason that various officials of applicant have to deal with the matter at different levels. However, the delay cannot be condoned only for the reason that the applicant is a government organization or government functionary.

¶18

The law on the aspect of delay is quite clear. While delay of a short duration can be condoned without insisting on specific reasons, the long delay can be condoned only if details

¶19

Crl.Misc.No.A-809-MA of 2011 --3--

¶20

are given and reasonable explanation for the same is forwarded in the application.

¶21

In the case in hand, there is delay of 356 days, i.e. about a year and practically no plea has been made in the application to explain the delay. What is mentioned in the application is that the delay has occurred in the process of procuring the documents. It is not mentioned as to which document had to be procured and what time was taken in procuring the same. In the absence of any specific plea, the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

¶22

Consequently the application for leave to appeal is barred by limitation and is dismissed as such.

¶23

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶24

08.01.2013 dinesh

Ut of Chandigarh v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ut of Chandigarh v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh @ Kabra Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Hanpreet Kaur Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Satpal Garg & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karan @ Lovely Vs State of Haryana