Delay caused by a bona fide counsel lapse may be condoned to secure adjudication on merits.

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh, dismissed the complaint by order dated 18.05.2018 for non-payment of process fee.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision by order dated 09.07.2018 on the ground of limitation and rejected the application for condonation of delay.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the delay had been explained by affidavit and that he should not suffer for the lapse of his counsel.

Whether the Revisional Court erred in refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act despite the petitioner’s affidavit explaining the delay.

Whether the orders dismissing the revision on limitation and dismissing the complaint for non-payment of process fee should be set aside in exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

It considered Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned where “sufficient cause” is shown.

The Court also recognized the general principle that applications for condonation of delay should be approached liberally where the explanation discloses sufficient cause and refusal would deny adjudication on merits.

A litigant should ordinarily not be penalized for a bona fide mistake or lapse of counsel, particularly where the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

The underlying complaint concerned an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court found that the petitioner had furnished an explanation for the delay by filing an affidavit and that the circumstances disclosed warranted consideration of the matter on merits.

Applying the liberal approach governing condonation of delay, the Court held that a technical objection relating to limitation should not defeat substantial justice where sufficient cause is shown.

It further held that the petitioner ought not to suffer for a bona fide lapse of counsel, particularly in the absence of material indicating that the delay was deliberate or intentional.

Since the matter could be examined on merits and no prejudice to the respondent was identified, the interests of justice required both the condonation of delay and restoration of the complaint for fresh consideration.

The High Court set aside the Revisional Court’s order dated 09.07.2018 and the JMFC’s order dated 18.05.2018, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 10,000 within 15 days in the specified Indian Red Cross Society, Jabalpur account and producing proof of deposit before the Registry.

Upon deposit, the matter was remitted to the JMFC for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law.

The deposited amount was directed to be used for the welfare of children residing in State-managed child-care institutions at Jabalpur, with utilization reports to be furnished as directed.

The JMFC was directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in the High Court’s order.