Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (Honourable Ms. Justice S.V. Pinto)

Order Date: 14/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Gujarat State Co‑operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd; Respondents – State of Gujarat & an unnamed second respondent.
  • Proceedings: Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5334 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay in filing Criminal Revision Application No. 9007/2026.
  • Background: The revision application challenges a judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge that affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.
  • Delay: The revision was filed 169 days after the impugned judgment. Rule was served to Respondent No. 2, but no appearance was made by that respondent.
  • Appearances: MR. Amit R. Joshi (Advocate, No. 6682) for the applicant; Ms. C.M. Shah for Respondent No. 1; rule served for Respondent No. 2.
  • Explanation of Delay: Applicant obtained certified copies of the judgment, sought legal advice, and collected necessary documents; claimed delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, not intentional.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 – liberal approach to condonation to advance substantial justice.
  • N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 – length of delay is immaterial; acceptability of explanation is key.
  • Subsequent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing pragmatic interpretation of “sufficient cause” and avoidance of prejudice.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The 169‑day delay was not shown to be deliberate or mala fides; no irreparable prejudice to the respondent; refusal would deny the applicant a statutory remedy.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that sufficient cause was established and therefore condoned the 169‑day delay.
  • The application for condonation was allowed.
  • The rule was made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Topics: Court Order, Delay Condonation, Criminal Revision