IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939 Crl.MC.No. 4019 of 2017 () CRL.RP.NO.50/2016 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. CC 1086/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: P.IBRAHIM HAJI, S/O.MUHAMMED, NADUVATTOM P.O., KAIPPURAM PATTAMBI TALUK (PROPRIETOR NATIONAL TRADERS, NADUVATTOM). BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU MARTIN SRI.M.M.SALIM SRI.P.T.SHAHUL HAMEED SRI.D.M.NOWFAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1. V.ABOOBACKER, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT K.ALI, S/O.MOIDU, NAMBRATH P.O., VALANCHERY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ Crl.MC.No. 4019 of 2017 () APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 : THE ORDER IN [CASE NUMBER] DATED 7.4.2017. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 12th day of June, 2017 O R D E R
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the revisional Sessions Court in condoning the delay of 107 days in the institution of the private complaint at the instance of the first respondent herein, alleging offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against the petitioner herein.
2. Heard Sri[ENTITY], learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri.[ENTITY], learned prosecutor appearing for R2/State.
3. The trial court has passed the order condoning the delay by virtue of the enabling powers conferred as per [SECTION] proviso of the [ACT]. It is not in dispute that the said delay has been condoned by the trial court after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides including the petitioner herein. The said order rendered by the trial court was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] 2
before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under [SECTION] of the [ACT] The trial court has also found that the complaint could not be instituted within the prescribed time as the cheque involved was misplaced and that no prudent person would cause a complication so as to put his own interest at peril by deliberately delaying the execution of the complaint against the accused. The trial court has specifically mentioned that with the materials on record, the trial court has correctly analysed and marshalled with the factual situation and has come to the correct conclusion that the delay has been properly explained and that the delay condonation is fully justified. The Sessions Court has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], for the proposition held that sufficient cause in [SECTION] of the [ACT] must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that there were no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay such plea could be willfully considered. The Apex Court has held in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development [CASE NUMBER] 3
Corpn. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459, that courts are bestowed with the power to condone delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time and that a liberal approach in condoning delay of short duration and a stricter approach where delay is inordinate, would be appropriate, etc. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has held that the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, etc. This was again reiterated by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], that a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in exercise of power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and other similar statutes and that whether there is sufficient cause for condoning delay would also largely depend on the bona fide nature of explanation, etc.
4. Since both the courts below have been fully satisfied with the factual aspects of the case projected by both sides regarding the tenability of the delay condonation plea, this Court is of the view that it may not be proper for this Court to disturb such considered factual findings rendered by both the courts below in the present petition which has been filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] The said view taken by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
[CASE NUMBER] 4
No serious illegality or impropriety could be pointed out by the petitioner.
In the light of these aspects, this Court is constrained to take the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is so accordingly ordered.
[ENTITY] JUDGE csl