A sufficiently explained 176-day delay warrants condonation in the interests of justice.

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint alleging that the applicant, acting through her husband as power of attorney, sold land that had previously been sold to another person.

The Magistrate summoned the applicant and her husband on 31 March 2016.

The applicant filed a criminal revision with a 176-day delay, explaining that she was residing in her parental home and learned of the case only on 12 December 2016, after visiting relatives in the area.

The Sessions Judge rejected her application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, finding the explanation insufficient.

The applicant challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC.

1. Whether the applicant’s explanation for the 176-day delay in filing the criminal revision constituted sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Whether the Sessions Judge’s order rejecting the delay-condonation application should be set aside.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits a delayed appeal or application to be admitted where the applicant establishes sufficient cause for not acting within the prescribed period.

The Court applied the principle that delay should be assessed in light of the explanation and the interests of justice, and that a litigant should not be denied an opportunity to pursue a matter on mere technical grounds where sufficient cause is shown.

The application was brought under Section 482 CrPC, which was the procedural basis for the High Court’s challenge to the impugned order.

No precedent was cited.

The applicant’s account was that she lived outside the area and learned of the case only when she visited relatives on 12 December 2016, after which she contacted counsel and obtained information about the proceedings.

The Court accepted this explanation as proper and sufficient, noting that the delay was 176 days and that there was no deliberate delay.

It considered that refusing condonation in these circumstances would shut the applicant out on a technical ground.

It condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, directed that the criminal revision be treated as within time, and directed the Sessions Judge to register and decide it on its merits.

The Section 482 application was disposed of accordingly.