Sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay was not shown, so the delay in seeking leave to appeal was not condoned.

Condonation of an inordinate delay in seeking leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure depended on showing sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The explanation offered was found inadequate, particularly for the major period after the appeal had been returned on objections, and the record did not furnish a real basis to treat the delay as satisfactorily explained. In cases of substantial delay, a stricter approach was applied, and sufficient cause was not established; the delay was therefore not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay in seeking leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was governed by section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits condonation only where sufficient cause is shown. The delay was substantial and was stated to be in two parts, but no convincing explanation was offered for the major subsequent period of delay after the appeal had been returned on objections. In matters involving inordinate delay, a stricter approach is required, and the explanation on record did not furnish any real basis to conclude that the delay was satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not established and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

---