UKHC010111132026 2026:UHC:5368 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/488/2026 Rauh Das --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Aman Baluni, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. V.S. Pal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 48 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed as barred by limitation and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay was also rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is contended that the revisionist was suffering from serious medical ailments during the relevant period and, therefore, was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. In support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the revisionist had placed UKHC010111132026 2026:UHC:5368 on record the relevant medical documents. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the explanation furnished and the medical evidence placed on record, rejected the application for condonation of delay on hyper-technical grounds. Learned counsel further submits that it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation and that it is not mandatory for an applicant to explain every day’s delay, provided the explanation offered is reasonable, bona fide, and inspires confidence. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Appellate Court has adopted an unduly technical approach while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The explanation furnished by the revisionist, duly supported by medical records, constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle of law that procedural rules relating to limitation are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it, particularly when no mala fides or deliberate negligence can be attributed to the litigant. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.05.2026 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned Appellate Court UKHC010111132026 2026:UHC:5368 is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and proceed to hear and decide the same expeditiously on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. (Alok Mahra, J.) 06.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.06 15:38:05 +05'30'