Manipur High Court
Thiyam Ongbi Ibemcha Devi vs State Of Manipur on 20 February, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
1
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.03.07
09:16:37 +05'30'
Item No. 8(DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cril.A)No.43 of 2024
Thiyam Ongbi Ibemcha Devi
Applicant
Vs.
State of Manipur.
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
20.02.2025
D. Krishnakumar, C.J. :
[1] Mrs. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel, appears for the applicant and Mr.
RK Umakanta, learned PP for the State.
[2] The instant application has been filed by the applicant who was
accused in the Sessions trial Court in case No.8 of 2016 on the file of Sessions
Court Imphal East for the lifetime imprisonment.
[3] In the petition, the appellant does not get necessary support from her
family to pursue her case, therefore, she could not make appropriate arrangement
for availing the legal remedy under the law against the impugned Judgement &
Order dated 27.02.2018 passed in the Session Trial Case No.8 of 2016 by the
Session Court, Manipur East on account of lack of financial resources, logistic etc.
During the inspection by the High Committee, the Committee has noticed that the
said accused person/applicant has no sufficient means to approach the High
MC(CRIL.A)NO.43 OF 2024 1
2
Court for filing the appeal against the Judgement & order dated 27.02.2018 p
passed by the Sessions Court in the Session Trial Case No.08 of 2016. Therefore,
the High Court Legal Services Authority has taken a decision to render legal
assistance to the accused person/applicant on 02.04.2018 appointing Smt. N.
Elizabeth, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel for the accused/applicant and
thereafter, the counsel for the applicant is not in a position to file an appeal due to
Covid-19 Pandemic, it takes time to collect relevant records from the concerned
trial Court. Moreover, the record room were affected as such all the relevant files
were displaced due to the on and off flood at District & Session court, Imphal East
at Cheirap Court Complex, Imphal Manipur. Therefore, the aforesaid delay in filing
the appeal is only about said bonafide reasons.
[3] Though counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondent
objecting the said inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the entire affidavit has
been narrated the facts of the case in which the applicant was involvement in the
aforesaid murder case.
[4] Considering the said submissions that the applicant/accused has no
legal access to file an appeal, due to the aforesaid reasons that she does not have
the means to defend her case and therefore, the High Court Legal Services
Authority has stepped into for rendering legal service to the aforesaid
applicant/accused and hence, the High Court Legal Services Authority has
advised the counsel to appear for applicant/accused and to file an appeal before
the High Court. Since the counsel for the applicant/accused due to the various
MC(CRIL.A)NO.43 OF 2024 2
3
reasons as stated in the earlier paragraphs that they are not in a position to get
the entire records as well as due to other reasons of natural calamities such as
Covid-19 pandemic etc. they are not in a position to file an appeal within the
reasonable time. Due to the above bonafide reasons, the appeal has not been
preferred. Though the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Esha
Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.
held that whether it is a long delay or short delay, must also see on the other
grounds for condoning the delay if the other party is not prejudiced and the
relevant paras are reproduced as under:
“18. Recently in Maniben Devraf Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan
Mumbai, the learned Judges referred to the pronouncement in
Vedavai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil wherein it has been opined that
a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is
inordinate and a case where the delay is of few days and whereas in
the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be
a relevant factor, in the latter case no such consideration arises.
Thereafter, the two-Judge Bench ruled thus: (Maniben Devraj Shah
case, SCC pp. 168-169, paras 23-24)”
23. What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal
and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the
exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious
of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights
on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time
is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.
24. What colour the expression ‘sufficient cause’ would get in
the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona
MC(CRIL.A)NO.43 OF 2024 3
4
fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has
been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause
shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may
condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given
by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly
negligent in prosecuting his cause, the n it would be a legitimate
exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.”
“21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of
delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their
proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that
these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical
should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of
delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be
taken note of.”
[5] Normally this Court will not entertain the inordinate delay in filing
such an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However,
considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and in light of the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there will be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented,
non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
This is a fit case to consider the reasons as adduced in the affidavit for the
inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is
MC(CRIL.A)NO.43 OF 2024 4
5
accepted for condoning the delay in filing the said appeal and in such
circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and consequently, the
application is allowed.
[6] Registry is directed to number the appeal.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
MC(CRIL.A)NO.43 OF 2024 5