https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74787 The court dismissed the petition by the convicted 4th accused seeking to condone a delay of 1079 days in filing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods in judicial matters, highlighting that condonation of delay is not automatic and necessitates a strong justification. It rejected the argument that delay in a convict's appeal can be easily condoned, stressing the significance of limitation for effective justice administration. Additionally, the court noted the absence of oral evidence due to the lapse of time, further contributing to the dismissal of the petition. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74787 The court dismissed the petition by the convicted 4th accused seeking to condone a delay of 1079 days in filing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods in judicial matters, highlighting that condonation of delay is not automatic and necessitates a strong justification. It rejected the argument that delay in a convict's appeal can be easily condoned, stressing the significance of limitation for effective justice administration. Additionally, the court noted the absence of oral evidence due to the lapse of time, further contributing to the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74787