Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 387 (MP)

Kavita Yadav v. State of M. P.

2020-03-06

VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2019 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in MJCR No. 242/2019 whereby the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the applicant has been dismissed and not entertained the appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that tanker No. U.P.64 H 2451 is running by the applicant. On 7.8.2018 the above mentioned tanker filled with 15,000 ltrs diesel was carrying diesel illegally without having any authority, license or transport permit. Police Station, Morba checked the tanker and after seizing the tanker registered Crime No. 342/2018 under section 3 read with section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and sent information to the concerned District Magistrate of the District for confiscation of diesel as well as tanker. Case No. 231/B-121/2017-18 registered by the Additional Collector, Singrauli and issued notice to the applicant for submitting reply and objection. The applicant submitted reply and objection. Learned Court of Additional Collector, Singrauli vide order dated 22.4.2019 passed a detailed order and confiscated the diesel as well as tanker No. U.P.64 H 2451. 3. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed criminal appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Singrauli. Learned Sessions Judge, Singrauli found that this appeal filed under section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act was time barred. The applicant filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay showing the cause of delay in the 3 application that Additional Collector kept the file for orders but not informed to the applicant. When the applicant asked for that, the Court of Additional Collector replied that whenever the order will pass, it will be informed to the applicant. The applicant came to know on 24.8.2019 that the order had already been passed by Additional Collector on 22.4.2019. Thereafter, the applicant immediately applied for certified copy of the order and after receiving certified copy contacted the counsel and filed appeal on 1.10.2019. The applicant supported that facts by filing affidavit of herself. 4. The applicant came to know on 24.8.2019 that the order had already been passed by Additional Collector on 22.4.2019. Thereafter, the applicant immediately applied for certified copy of the order and after receiving certified copy contacted the counsel and filed appeal on 1.10.2019. The applicant supported that facts by filing affidavit of herself. 4. Learned appellate Court after considering all these facts, passed impugned order dated 6.12.2019 and found that there is no sufficient cause shown in the application for condoning the delay and dismissed the application not entertaining the appeal, hence the applicant has filed this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Additional Collector, Singrauli was busy and after giving assurance did not pass order in time, however, whenever the applicant asked for the order, he received only reply that he would be informed. There was election at that time. Additional Collector, Singrauli was busy in election and passed the order mentioning the back date on the order. When the applicant came to know about passing of the order, he immediately applied for certified copy of that order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On perusal of the record, it reveals that along with diesel learned Court of Additional Collector, Singrauli confiscated the tanker of the applicant. The applicant submits that during pendency of the case, Additional Collector, Singrauli without providing proper opportunity for defending the case to the applicant dismissed the case by putting back date on the order and the appellate Court did not consider this fact properly. 8. Considering all the materials, this Court is of the view that after passing the order of confiscation, learned Court of Additional Collector, Singrauli clearly stated that the applicant failed to provide the documents for carrying diesel in the tanker and found that tanker carried the diesel illegally and the applicant was also provided opportunity in alternate to deposit the market value of the tanker, but the applicant did not avail that opportunity. Learned Additional Collector by virtue of provisions of section 6A (1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act made an order of confiscation. 9. After perusal of the whole documents, it is reflected that the applicant was much interested to take the tanker on temporary Supurdagi instead of defending the case properly before the Additional Collector. Learned Additional Collector by virtue of provisions of section 6A (1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act made an order of confiscation. 9. After perusal of the whole documents, it is reflected that the applicant was much interested to take the tanker on temporary Supurdagi instead of defending the case properly before the Additional Collector. This Court is of the view that if the applicant is having an opportunity of hearing in appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector, he can also have an opportunity for submitting the documents or depositing the value of tanker of current market rate. 10. section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under : "5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. -Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section." On bare perusal perusal of aforesaid provision, it reveals that if the applicant is having sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time, the delay period can be condoned. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 in para-9 defined sufficient case for condoning the delay which reads as under : "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee and ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336 ; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953 ; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 ; and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629 .)" 12. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of application, that has not been rebutted by State properly. Hence, this Court is of the view that learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act. 13. In view of aforesaid discussions, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.12.2019 is hereby set aside. The period of delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Learned trial Court is hereby directed to restore the appeal and register the same. After registering the appeal, the same shall be decided on merit by the appellate Court as early as possible preferably within one month after appearing of both parties. Till disposal of the appeal, the tanker should not be provided to the applicant in interim custody. 14. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27th April, 2020. 15. Till disposal of the appeal, the tanker should not be provided to the applicant in interim custody. 14. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27th April, 2020. 15. Let copy of this order be sent to the Court of Session, Singrauli for necessary information and compliance.