14.09.2026 Item no.15. Ct. No.237 Suman C.R.R. 3320 of 2026 Smt. Anita Sett Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. Mr. Debashis Banerjee Mr. Rakesh Jana ..For the petitioner The petitioner was the de facto complainant in connection with Burtolla Police Station Case No. 68 of 2016 dated February 26, 2016, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid provision. Upon conclusion of the trial, however, the accused/opposite party no. 2 was acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, by an order passed in T.R. No. 423 of 2016 on February 19, 2025. The petitioner, being a victim, preferred an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2026. In connection with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. By an order dated May 5, 2026, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application. The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the aforesaid order dated May 5, 2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It clearly appears from the application for condonation of delay filed before the learned Sessions Judge that no explanation whatsoever was furnished for the delay. The entire explanation contained in the application is confined to the following solitary sentence: “That your petitioiner is a cancer patient and under medical supervision.” The learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, observed that the order of the learned Trial Court was passed on February 19, 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy only on November 26, 2025, and the certified copy was made available to her on November 29, 2025. The appeal was thereafter preferred only on January 3, 2026. Thus, there was a delay of approximately 318 days in preferring the appeal. A mere assertion that the petitioner is a cancer patient, without any particulars as to how her medical condition prevented her from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient explanation for the delay. This Court is constrained to observe that there appears to be an increasing tendency among litigants to file applications for condonation of delay without furnishing any cogent or satisfactory explanation, perhaps taking advantage of the liberal approach sometimes adopted by Courts while considering such applications. 2 It is not only the duty of the litigant to explain the circumstances which prevented the filing of the proceeding within the prescribed period; it is equally the responsibility of the learned advocate to ensure that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is drafted with due care and contains a proper and specific explanation constituting sufficient cause for the delay. Unfortunately, in the present case, such responsibility appears to have been conspicuously overlooked. The application for condonation of delay contains no particulars explaining the period of delay and merely refers to the petitioner's medical condition. This Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, particularly when the impugned order cannot be said to be without justification or based on any erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, C.R.R. 3320 of 2026 is dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 3