JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant Jai Bhagwan Giri, who is currently in jail, was convicted by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 506 of IPC, vide order dated 07.09.2011. Applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 420 of IPC. Likewise, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 452 of IPC. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 2. Aggrieved against the same, applicant-convict preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, which criminal appeal was transferred to II Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Learned lower appellate court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in preferring criminal appeal and the convict was therefore, prevented from arguing his criminal appeal on merits. In other words, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the convict was dismissed by lower appellate court, vide order dated 20.05.2014. 3. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. Denial of arguing the criminal appeal on merits may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and therefore, certain amount of latitude should be permissible in such cases. The courts have to inform with the spirit and philosophy of the provisions in the course of interpretation of the expression ‘sufficient cause’. The same approach is required to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with a view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. 4. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to criminal appeal preferred before learned lower appellate court, sufficient cause exists for the delay. 5. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 20.05.2014 is hereby set aside. Sessions Judge, Haridwar is requested to condone the delay in filing the criminal appeal, which may, thereafter, be decided on merits in accordance with law.