Judicial officers must be careful and diligent while discharging their duties

The pre-arrest bail granted by this court was not cancelled by this court and hence, the same was in force when the petitioner was remanded by the learned magistrate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should not have remanded the petitioner to judicial custody, when the learned Magistrate was informed of the relief granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code. It was noticed by this court from the explanation submitted by the learned magistrate that the learned Magistrate had taken up the matter lightly and casually, without considering the seriousness of the issue involved in the case. It is clear that there was failure on the part of the learned magistrate in this regard. However, the learned magistrate did not even express any regret in the first explanation submitted by her. The humility must be the hallmark of a Judicial Officer. The judicial discipline is necessary for the existence of the judicial system. If judicial officers commit mistakes, the same will undermine the esteem of the judiciary. The judicial officers must be conscious about the importance of personal liberty vis-à-vis social interests. Therefore, the judicial officers must be careful and diligent while discharging their duties. The learned magistrate submitted in the second explanation that there was mistake on her part in dealing with the matter. However, in order to avert the impairing of the morale of the officers of the subordinate judiciary, this court restraints from making any adverse comment against the learned magistrate concerned. This court also accepts the second explanation and directs the learned magistrate to be more diligent and careful in discharging the duties in future.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. No. 688 of 2016

Decided On: 01.03.2016

Nahif Ali 
Vs.
The Station House Officer, Ambalavayal Police Station

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.

Print Page

What is “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay?

The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where
a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant
has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which
means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to
approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be
negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the
delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate
delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard
to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to
prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts

to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6974 of 2013
Basawaraj & Anr. 
V
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 
Dated;August 22, 2013
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
Citation:2013(5) ALLMR934 SC

Print Page