Liberal condonation of delay under Section 5 favours merits review where the explanation is plausible and bona fide.

Delay in filing and re-filing a criminal revision petition under Section 5 is to be assessed on whether sufficient cause is shown, construed liberally in favour of substantial justice. The Court applied a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach and held that a plausible explanation for the delay should not be rejected on a technical or pedantic view. As the explanation on record was found acceptable and no deliberate inaction or mala fides was established, the refusal to condone delay was set aside. The revision was remitted to the High Court for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the criminal revision petition was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The governing test under Section 5 is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause, and that expression must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The sufficiency of cause depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the Court must adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach rather than a technical or pedantic one. The explanation offered for the delay in filing and re-filing was found to be plausible, and the High Court erred in rejecting it without properly examining the explanations on record.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned. The order refusing condonation was set aside and the revision was remitted to the High Court for decision on merits in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 must be decided on a liberal, pragmatic assessment of sufficient cause, with preference for adjudication on merits where the explanation is plausible and no deliberate inaction or mala fides is established.

---