Mere Technicalities Ought Not To Impede Justice: Sikkim HC Condones Delay In Filing Appeal By Accused Who Were Unable To Engage Private Counsel

The Sikkim High Court has condoned the delay in filing a criminal appeal which was caused due to the petitioners seeking services of a private counsel and being unable to secure the same within the requisite time.

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was considering a criminal revision petition preferred by the petitioners/revisionists against the order of the Session Court which rejected their application for condonation of 388 days delay in filing the appeal. The Magistrate had convicted the petitioners under Sections 454 and 380 IPC by order dated 24-08-2022.

The petitioners contended that they sought to engage a private counsel after their conviction. However, they were unable to engage a private counsel on time as they were incarcerated and only the wife of petitioner no.3 was involved in looking for a counsel. Therefore, they prayed for condonation of delay.

The High Court noted that the petitioners were unable to take steps quickly as they were in jail and that the entire responsibility fell on the wife of petitioner no.3.

The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda v. LAO (1988 AIR 897), where it was held that there needs to be a 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay in filing appeals. The High Court opined that the expression 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally to condone delay in the interest of justice.

It stated “However, the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and that 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 delay.”

The Court was of the view that there were mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellants. It noted that the petitioners have a right to engage a private counsel if they are not satisfied with the services of a Legal Aid Counsel.

“…it has to be observed that the Revisionists are also entitled to legal Counsel of their choice. If they are not satisfied with the services of a Legal Aid Counsel and they seek to engage a private Counsel the Courts cannot stand in their way, in their quest for justice as they perceive it” the Court observed.

The Court noted that in the present case, there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioners. It held that as circumstances were not in the favour of the petitioners, “mere technicalities ought not to impede the path of justice.”

It thus condoned the delay of the petitioners in filing the appeal.

Case title: Bidhan Trikhatri and Others vs. State of Sikkim, Crl.Rev.P. No.04 of 2024

Citation: 2024 Live Law (Sik) 8

Click Here To Read/Download Order