This is an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 92 days caused in filing the present application for preferring appeal against acquittal of the contesting respondent passed on 30.6.1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol for offences punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The applicant has contended that there was transfer of the concerned officer and, therefore, there was delay in submission of application for certified copy and, hence there was further delay in filing application. The said contention is supported by filing supporting affidavit of Mr R K Prajapati, Drug Inspector of office of the Astt. Commissioner Food & Drugs Control Administration, Mehsana.
2.At the first instance, notice was issued on precondition of depositing Rs.500/- in the registry. However, thereafter, the contesting respondent does not appear to have filed affidavit. After-all the application is made by the officer of the Government. In Government due to impersonal machinery, there appears to be some delay which can be attributed to procedural delay and also to the fact that the concerned officer had been transferred. Therefore, some other officer has to be acquainted with the pending matters.
3.In that view of the matter, I am of the view that there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" as found in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is required to be construed liberally and when so construed, it can be said that sufficient cause was there for the applicant to come late to the court.
4.In view of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the applicant has explained the delay in filing the application satisfactorily. There is no inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the applicant.
5.At the verge of completion of the dictation, learned Advocate for the respondent appears and argues the matter. It is his case that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P K Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered the scope and ambit of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There it was found that at the relevant time, the Advocate General's office was fed up with arbitration matters which were pending for consideration and, therefore, the matter in question could not be dealt with and there was delay. Learned Advocate for the respondent argues that simply because the office or officer is over-burdened, it would not be treated to be a just and proper ground for condoning the delay. In the present case, the officer has stated that he was incharge of two offices and he was over-burdened. Therefore, this decision will not apply to the facts of the present case. He has relied upon another decision in the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1981 SC 733. Relying upon that case, the learned Advocate argues that here the delay which has been caused before the expiry of limitation is on one hand and the delay caused after expiry of limitation is on the other hand. He has relied on the observations made in para 6 of the judgment that when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstances arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. That there may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.
6.In the present case, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the concerned officer was transferred and the incoming officer may not have full idea about different matters pending in different courts and the stage at which they are pending. Therefore, it will take some time to get acquainted with the matter pending in the court. Therefore, the delay has been attributed on this consideration. I am of the view that when a new officer takes over, he takes some time in getting acquainted with respect to matters pending in various courts under his jurisdiction. Therefore, when the time is taken by him in getting acquainted with those matters, it may be said that it was a just explanation offered by him for showing the delay caused in applying the certified copy. Then the matter has to be in process and administrative process will take some time because even under the Law Officers' Rule, the matter is required to be processed according to the procedural rules and therefore, there would be some procedural delay in finalising the process. Procedural delay is, at times, considered to be reasonable grounds for condoning delay.
7.In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay caused in filing this application. In the result, this application is allowed. The delay caused in filing the application is condoned. The main application shall be placed for admission and hearing. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
13.9.2000[D P Buch, J.] msp