Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, which had dismissed the delay condonation application, and held that no limitation is prescribed for a victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
The Court observed:
“Where the Legislature, in its wisdom, has not prescribed a period of limitation, the Court cannot import one. Even otherwise, the Covid-19 pandemic was a period which no one can forget, and its impact ought not to have been ignored by the appellate court.”
The High Court directed restoration of the appeal to its original position and instructed the appellate court to hear the matter on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, a registered co-operative society, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused for dishonour of a cheque worth ₹1,15,748. The complaint was registered as Summary Criminal Case No. 1832/2017. Process was issued against the accused in December 2017, but the accused remained absent.
On 3 February 2021, the trial court dismissed the complaint in default under Section 256 CrPC, resulting in acquittal of the accused. On 28 February 2022, the petitioner filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court, along with an application seeking condonation of a 362-day delay.
On 25 July 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the condonation application, holding that the delay was long, inordinate, and inadequately explained. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether there is any prescribed limitation period for filing an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the delay condonation application despite the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to restore the appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, introduced through the 2009 amendment, provides an independent statutory right of appeal to victims against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. Since the Legislature did not prescribe any limitation period for such appeals, the Sessions Court erred in requiring condonation of delay.
Even if an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed, the petitioner argued that sufficient reasons were provided. The delay occurred due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, which disrupted functioning and caused the matter to slip out of track. The petitioner relied on the legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 372, stressing that it was enacted to empower victims and cannot be diluted by importing limitation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, though served, did not appear despite repeated opportunities, including a final chance given by the Court on 14 August 2025. As a result, no counterarguments were advanced at the stage of final hearing.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the scope of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, noting that it confers a substantive right on victims independent of the State. Importantly, it contains no clause prescribing limitation for filing such appeals. The omission was deliberate, reflecting legislative intent to ensure victims have an unfettered remedy.
The Court further observed that the Covid-19 pandemic had unprecedented impact, affecting litigants, courts, and society at large. This period cannot be treated lightly when considering applications for condonation of delay. The Sessions Court, by failing to adopt a liberal approach, had undermined both the spirit of Section 372 and the realities of the pandemic.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on earlier rulings to reinforce its findings:
- Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi v. Jaiprakash Tulsiram Gupta (2020 ALL MR (Cri) 2926): Held that no limitation period is prescribed for victims’ appeals under Section 372 CrPC.
- Mohd. Azim Sheikh Ibrahim v. Mehamuda Anjum Mohd. Azim (2014 ALL MR (Cri) 991): Reiterated that victims’ appeals are not bound by limitation periods.
These judgments were cited to establish that the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the condonation application, as the appeal itself was not barred by limitation.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that:
- The proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not prescribe limitation for victim’s appeals; hence, the Sessions Court was wrong to reject the appeal on delay grounds.
- Even otherwise, the petitioner’s explanation invoking the Covid-19 pandemic was sufficient cause for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Courts must adopt a liberal approach when delay results from extraordinary circumstances beyond the litigant’s control.
- The appellate court should have registered the appeal and decided it on merits rather than rejecting it at the threshold.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order and allowed the writ petition. It condoned the 362-day delay, restored the appeal to its original position, and directed the appellate court to register and hear it on merits.
Implications
This ruling strengthens victims’ rights under criminal law, clarifying that no limitation binds appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. It also highlights the judiciary’s recognition of the Covid-19 pandemic as a valid ground for delay. The judgment encourages a liberal approach in condonation applications, particularly where legislative intent favours victims’ access to justice.
FAQs
Q1. Is there a limitation period for filing a victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC?
No. The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that no limitation is prescribed, and such appeals can be filed without delay restrictions.
Q2. Can Covid-19 be considered sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
Yes. The Court recognised the pandemic as an extraordinary circumstance justifying delay in filing appeals.
Q3. What did the High Court ultimately order in this case?
It quashed the Sessions Court’s rejection, condoned the delay of 362 days, and directed the appeal to be heard on merits.
