R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 9969 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19156 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9989 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19163 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9995 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19159 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9997 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19154 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9998 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19152 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9999 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19149 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10000 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19153 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10001 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19148 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10026 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19158 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10027 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19145 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10028 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19157 of 2025 With R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10029 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19147 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10033 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19160 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10036 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19161 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10042 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19155 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10043 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19162 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10045 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19151 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10049 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19150 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10050 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19164 of 2025 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10051 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19146 of 2025 ============================================= KIRAN PROCESSORS PVT LTD. & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================= Appearance: MR BK SINGH(6057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================= R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. The present applicants have filed the present applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay caused in filing Revision Applications. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Dipesh D. Soni is appearing for the respondent no.2. Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama. 4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Shah and he has submitted that the applicant no.3 is arrested and he is in jail since 27.04.2025. The applicant no.1 is a company. 5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants could not file the revision applications in timely fashion because of financial hardship and they have to arrange papers for filing of the revision applications. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned, which amounts to dismiss the matter at the threshold, the applicants shall have to serve the sentence and therefore, have requested to condone the delay caused in filing the revision applications. Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 6. The learned APP and original Complainant have no objection, if the delay is condoned. 6.1. Original Complainant is present and he has submitted that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned as the matter is settled between the parties. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have mentioned sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss the matter at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicants is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona fide and genuine. There is no smack of mala fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. Further, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first cut refuses to condone the dela. In such cases, the superior cut would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. ...Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when R/CR.MA/9969/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025 there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation.” 8. In view of the above, the delay as explained in memo of the applications is condoned. The applications are accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. 9. Registry is directed to list the revision applications accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) JCP Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/07/2025 18:44:30