IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13245 of 2025 ========================================================== ALPESH VASUDEV GANDHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: BHAUMIK H SHAH(8188) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APPfor the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent-State. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.2592 of 2025 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot. 4. The petitioner herein is the original accused No. 2, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation of 1,65,00,000/- to the complainant within ₹ 30 days. In the event of failure to pay the compensation amount, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of six months, as per the conviction order dated 11.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 7040 of 2018 by the learned 10th Additional Chief Judicial p. 2 Magistrate, Rajkot. Being aggrieved by the said conviction order, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the conviction order dated 11.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 7040 of 2018 by the learned 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 1951 days in preferring the appeal, which came to be registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2592 of 2025. The respondent– Bank filed its written objections opposing the condonation of delay. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot, vide order dated 01.09.2025, was pleased to dismiss the delay condonation application. As a consequence of the rejection of the delay condonation application, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the conviction order dated 11.03.2020 also failed. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 as well as the conviction order dated 11.03.2020, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in preferring the appeal occurred due to the unprecedented situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the said period, normal functioning of the courts was severely affected, and the petitioner was unable to approach his advocate or obtain necessary certified copies of the judgment and related documents. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitioner has mentioned sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The primary function p. 3 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 that if delay condonation application is refused would mean to dismiss the appeal at threshold and there is no presumption the delay caused by the appellant is deliberate. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2592 of 2025 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay of 1951 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of 5,000/- ₹ before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI