R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 11458 of 2025 ========================================= HITESH SHANTILAL KANKOSHIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================= Appearance: MR ISHAN R VYAS(10865) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR UMANG S OZA(10966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. KUSH B. DAVE(18505) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 APP MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 19/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The Special Criminal Application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant has sought relief to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 411/2025, dated 18/04/2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the Delay Condonation Application filed by the present petitioner, as he intended to prefer a Criminal Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 8984/2006. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vyas for the applicant, has R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error, as the applicant intended to prefer the revision application against the order of acquittal of the accused persons, who were acquitted on 12/07/2017. The applicant was not aware of the outcome, and the Government Pleader had also not informed him. Co-accused was also an absconder, and in the said case, when he inquired about the status, he came to know in the year 2017 that the case had been disposed of. As he came to know about the outcome on 06/08, he approached the District Legal Services Authority, and legal aid was provided. From the date of knowledge, a delay of 2032 days was caused. Hence, to challenge the said order by way of revision application, a delay of 2032 days was caused. Therefore, he preferred the Delay Condonation Application, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the present application. 3. Learned APP has opposed the application on the ground that the actual delay is not 2032 days, but the actual delay is 2815 days. No sufficient cause or reason for the delay is explained. Not only that, in the year 2017, the accused were acquitted and the co- accused were absconding, due to which their case was placed on dormant file, and subsequently, the proceedings were dropped and the accused were acquitted. The proceedings were dropped on 12/07/2017. Considering the aforesaid, the order of acquittal, in the R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 capacity of the original complainant, the present applicant wants to file the revision application, and without any explanation for the delay, he has filed the application. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the Delay Condonation Application. 4. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and perusing the record, it appears that the present applicant was the complainant, and he had filed the First C.R. No. 194/2025 on 12/08/2005, i.e., prior to 20 years, wherein the 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused persons on 12/07/2017. The applicant intended to prefer the revision application, wherein it is stated that a delay of 2032 days was caused, but the actual delay from the date of acquittal is 2815 days. In the Delay Condonation Application, not a single sentence or word—not even a whisper—is uttered about the delay or the knowledge thereof. No sufficient cause is mentioned, and even the period of delay is wrongly mentioned as only 232 days. In the absence of sufficient cause for the delay, the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with all contentions raised by the applicant, and the submissions made by the applicant are far from the truth. Not only that, but even after availing legal aid, as per the office order dated 06/02/2025, a further delay of 49 days has been caused, yet not even a whisper is made about this delay, over and R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 above the wrongly stated 232 days—when in fact, the actual delay is 2815 days. 5. There is no provision in criminal matters that the learned APP is duty bound to inform the complainant about the outcome. Not only that, but the complainant is cited only as a witness, and if he is aggrieved, then he has to file the appropriate proceedings within a reasonable time. After 2815 days, no case is made out in the absence of any reasonable explanation or sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. To allow the delay condonation application once accused persons are already acquitted and in their favour right is accrued. While deciding the bail application, the court is not duty-bound to examine the merits of the case. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the principle that limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and equity. No court should keep the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the accused or the applicant for an indefinite period of time, and the court is not duly bound to examine the merits of the case while condoning the delay. 6. In this regard, reference is required to be made of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Shubba Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector reported in 2024 INSC 286. Page 4 of 7 R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 Further relying on the case of Baljeet Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 33, it is recognized Principle of Jurisprudence that the right of exercise for long time become a nonexistence. In the case of Mohammad Sahid and others Vs. Raziya Khanam (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others in (2019) 11 SCC 384, in absence of the sufficient and the reasonable cause for condonation of the delay and based on the incorrect averments made before the court to explain the delay case is not made out for condonation of delay. In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) By Lrs Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363, where in : “23. The concepts of liberal approach and reasonableness in exercise of the discretion by the courts in condoning delay, have been again stated by this Court in Balwant Singh, as follows: (SCC p.696, paras 25-26) “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences, on the right and obligation of a party to arise (sic a lis). These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” “28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as "liberal approach", justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed t jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms.” 7. In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient cause and without any reason, no case is made out to condone the delay of 2815 days. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error, and as no case is made out to interfere with the order R/SCR.A/11458/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the application stands dismissed in limine. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J.) Kaushal Rathod Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/08/2025 17:21:58