Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Condone 109-Day Delay in Criminal Revision; Holds Vague Pleas of Misplaced Record Insufficient

Case Name: Baltej Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026

Citation: CRM-13183-2019 in/and CRR-997-2019

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of 109 days’ delay in filing a criminal revision petition and, consequently, dismissed the revision itself. The Court held that condonation of delay is an exception and not a rule, and that a party seeking such relief must furnish a reasonable, cogent and bona fide explanation. A bald plea that the trial court record was misplaced, unsupported by particulars or documentary material, was held to be wholly insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary: The applicant sought condonation of delay of 109 days in filing a criminal revision challenging the judgment dated 15 September 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeal filed by the State of Punjab was dismissed and respondent No.2 was acquitted of charges under Sections 379, 447 and 120-B IPC. The applicant contended that although certified copies had been applied for within time, the delay occurred due to an inadvertent and bona fide error as the trial court record was misplaced and had to be reconstructed.

The High Court examined the explanation offered and found it to be vague, unsupported by any concrete details, documents or chronology demonstrating diligent pursuit of the remedy. The Court noted that the application did not disclose when the record was misplaced, what steps were taken to trace or reconstruct it, or why the delay extended to 109 days. The explanation was found to lack particulars that could indicate bona fides or absence of negligence.

Relying on settled principles governing condonation of delay, including the requirement that sufficient cause must be shown and that liberal approach does not mean automatic condonation, the Court observed that the length of delay is not decisive, but the quality of the explanation is. The Court also referred to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence reiterating that condonation of delay is to remain an exception and that even governmental or public litigants must demonstrate bona fide and sufficient cause.

The Court concluded that the explanation advanced was neither reasonable nor satisfactory and appeared to be a deliberate attempt to prolong litigation against the respondents after their acquittal. In the absence of any credible justification, the application was held to be devoid of merit.

Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay of 109 days was dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was also dismissed.