IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-23690 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.8.2011 Ravinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus M/s Arora Industries and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2011 vide which delay of 170 days has been condoned. The respondent No.2 is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after the coming into existence of this order they preferred an appeal before this Court challenging acquittal of the petitioner. Noticing that amendment had been made to the provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C., the appeal preferred by the respondent was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar for deciding it in accordance with law and the respondent No.2 was directed to appear before the said Court on 19.4.2011 and a direction was also given that the point of limitation be also decided along with the said application. Thereafter, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge framed an issue “Whether there are sufficient Crl.Misc.No.M-23690 of 2011 (O&M) -2- grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal ? OPA”. It then went on to decide the issue and condone the delay. Aggrieved by the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the power of the Court to condone the delay is wide, yet once the issue had been framed, it could not have ignored the evidence on record and pass an order contrary to it. I have considered the contentions which have been raised before this court. The fact that the respondent had availed of an erroneous remedy is not in dispute. This Court had granted him liberty to appear before the trial court while transmitting the appeal to the Court of Session. In this eventuality the Court was only entitled to see whether the delay caused by the respondent was bona fide or not. There is no question of framing the issue as this procedure is alien to criminal law. The Addl. Sessions Judge certainly erred in giving this colour to the controversy. At the same time the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is a settled principle of law that the law of limitation has to be construed liberally and delay is to be condoned unless it is shown that the same is not bona fide. In the instant case the respondent had clearly chosen a wrong forum and filed the appeal in this Court whereas the amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibited the recourse to such a remedy. Consequently, the delay was unintentional. The Courts have to see that substantial justice is not made a casualty to the technical pleas raised before it. In the instant case there was sufficient bona fides of the respondent which could not have been ignored and even if the Court of Addl. Crl.Misc.No.M-23690 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Sessions Judge chose to follow the wrong procedure, yet declining indulgence would have and has surely prejudiced the case of the respondent whereas the petitioner is not prejudiced merely because an appeal is being entertained and he has always a right to contest the same. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 5.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss