ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) ON 22-10-1991 the present revision was filed in this Court which was reported as barred by time by 154 days and consequently an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved duly supported by an affidavit. ( 2 ) A copy of the memorandum of revision as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying the affidavit were served on the Government Advocate on 10-10-1991. Consequently on 22-10-1991 the learned A. G. A. was granted time to file a counter affidavit, if any, within three days. Further time was granted for obtaining instructions on two more dates. Km. Nachced Moonis, learned A. G. A. for the State has stated that neither any instruction has come from Mathura nor anyone has approached on behalf of the State to file a counter affidavit in opposition in spite of intimation having been sent. ( 3 ) UNDER the circumstances the grounds stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit were considered which appeared to be just and proper, and the delay stands sufficiently explained. Therefore, this revision is being treated as filed within time and the application under Section 5 Limitation Act stands allowed. ( 4 ) APPLICANT Chandra Prakash was convicted in S. T. No. 6 of 1989 under Section 392, I. P. C. by judgment dated 9-3-1990 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mathura, and sentenced to one Years, R. I. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge. Since the appeal was barred by time for very many reasons stated in the application under Section 5 filed along with the said memorandum, the delay was sought to be condoned and that application was numbered as Criminal Misc. No. 64 of 1990. At the time when the appeal was called out and the application under Section 5, Limitation Act, was placed along with the appeal neither the applicant nor his Counsel appeared before the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Consequently, the Sessions Judge rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being of the view that four days delay in filing the appeal before him was not sufficiently explained and, therefore, he also rejected the memorandum of appeal as being barred by time. Aggrieved, the applicant has come up to this Court through the present revision. Consequently, the Sessions Judge rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being of the view that four days delay in filing the appeal before him was not sufficiently explained and, therefore, he also rejected the memorandum of appeal as being barred by time. Aggrieved, the applicant has come up to this Court through the present revision. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant and Km. Naheed Moonis, learned A. G. A. has been heard in opposition to this revision. ( 6 ) A look at the order of the Sessions Judge indicates that no notice was issued to the State on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It further appears that no counter affidavit had been filed by the prosecution controverting the allegations made in the affidavit and the application under Section 5 filed along with the memorandum of appeal there. As stated above, the applicant and his counsel were absent. In the absence of the counsel for the applicant the D. G. C. was heard by the Sessions Judge and the affidavit was interpreted by the Judge as not disclosing sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. But the fact remains that the applicant had conviction to his credit and a right of an appeal is a statutory right. The appellate courts views of the offence may be interpreted even in favour of accused-appellants and, therefore, a serious prejudice may result where criminal appeals of accused are dismissed on the ground of limitation even if the delay is not even of a week. In this regard one may like to refer to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 . The said judgment was no doubt in connection with a civil matter but nonetheless the objectives behind Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the necessities of going into details in passing orders thereupon have been well delineated by the Supreme Court for being followed by the Courts and Tribunals. It had to be held that sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It had to be held that sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that the Supreme Court has (and this Court also) on innumerable occasions, been taking a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in courts. This liberal approach laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court are worthy to be imported in a case of this nature where four days delay in filing an appeal by an ignorant village citizen has been occasioned. ( 7 ) EVEN coming to the merits of the present case the absence of a counter affidavit should have emboldened the Judge to grant straightway relief to the applicant-appellant and after condoning the delay hear his appeal on merits. When there was nothing to controvert the allegations made in his affidavit a too technical view has certainly resulted in miscarriage of justice insofar as the applicant is concerned. Considering all these circumstances this revision has to be allowed. But the question still remains what should be done about the memorandum of appeal pending before the Sessions Judge. One way could be to ask the Sessions Judge to admit or dismiss the appeal afresh and the other would be to interpret the grounds taken in the application under Section 5 by this Court itself and pass a suitable order with regard to admission or dismissal of the memorandum of appeal before the court of Session. The first choice would be unnecessarily prolonging the litigation since the matters have been examined by this Court. The application under Section 5 ought to have been condoned in the absence of any counter affidavit by the State. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY Criminal Misc. Application No. 64 of 1990 filed in the court of the Sessions Judge, Mathura, is hereby allowed and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 7-2-1991 is set aside. The appeal against the conviction dated 9-3-1990 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mathura in S. T. No, 6 of 1989 shall be admitted and the bail application of the applicant, if any, may now be decided by the Sessions Judge on merits. The appeal against the conviction dated 9-3-1990 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mathura in S. T. No, 6 of 1989 shall be admitted and the bail application of the applicant, if any, may now be decided by the Sessions Judge on merits. If such bail application is moved the learned counsel for the applicant may move it before the Judge concerned, if so advised. ( 9 ) THIS revision is, therefore, allowed with the aforesaid observations. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within two weeks of the reopening of the Court. Revision allowed. .