JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.
Crl.M.A. 2222/2005
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. made on behalf of the State seeking condensation of 46 days delay in filing the appeal and application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 13.6.2003 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The application has been made with the averments that the concerned APP after examination of the impugned judgment on 26.7.2003 opined for the first time that it was a fit case for appeal and forwarded the file to the Public Prosecutor through Chief Prosecutor/NE P.P. Delhi. After examining the reports of the APP and Chief Prosecutor/NE viewed the case as not sound on merit to be challenged in appeal and forwarded the file to the Secretary, Law and Judicial of NCT of Delhi on 27.8.2003 and after the matter was processed in the Law Department and at different levels, the file was sent back to the Director of Prosecution on 25.9.2003, who in turn forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for taking necessary action. where after the matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor, Delhi High Court, who after completion of formalities, filed the appeal on 6.11.2003. It is stated that there was no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the authorities and the delay had occurred on account of the processing of the matter by various functionaries at various stages.
2. The prayer is opposed on behalf of the respondent and a reply stands filed thereby refuting that there are any sufficient grounds for condensation of delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
3. I have heard Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. K.B.Andley, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent and have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned standing counsel representing the State/applicant has sought support from a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors. , where on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of that case, the Honb'le Court condoned the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal against acquittal. It was also laid down in the said judgment that certain amount of latitude in the cases related to the State is not impermissible owing to the special circumstances in regard to the processing of the matter. In that case it was alleged that the file in question was mis-placed for some time.
4. Coming to the facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly having regard to the fact that the impugned order sought to be challenged is in relation to a case where the accused/respondent is alleged to have criminally intimidated a witness/complainant in a criminal case of attempt to murder etc., and concern shown by the courts and other organization on on this important aspect of the matter, this Court as a special case is inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the application to leave to appeal is condoned.
5. Before parting with this matter, this Court would like to observe that the Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a time-frame for filing appeals and other proceedings by a party aggrieved from certain orders/judgments. While doing so, the Legislature must have taken into account all relevant circumstances and that is why 90 days period has been prescribed for filing of appeal against the order of acquittal by State as in contrast to 30 days period prescribed for filing appeal against conviction. Despite this, it is seen that in umpteen number of cases State do not adhere to the prescribed time-frame and instead exhaust the same either at one or the other level and appeals are filed with application for condensation of delay with the routine plea that delay has been occasioned on account of processing of the file at various levels where the question is required to be considered. In such a situation, it is imperative on the concerned authorities of the State to lay down a strict time table for consideration of the matter at various levels. The Assistant or Additional Public Prosecutor who has conducted the case before the trial court cannot and should not be allowed more than a week's time to give an opinion as to whether in his view the case is fit for appeal or otherwise more particularly knowing fully well that his opinion is not final in the matter and it has to go in the hierarchy to various other authorities up to the Lt.Governor of Delhi, who in exercise of the functions of the State within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure has to take the final decision in the matter. We can only observe that entire exercise of taking a decision in the matter whether an appeal is to be filed or not should be completed within 75 days at the latest from the date of judgment/order leaving thereby at least 15 days for the standing counsel/public prosecutor to formulate the grounds of appeal and to file the appeal after completing the requisite formalities.
Crl.L.P.30/2005 Heard. Application is allowed and leave to appeal granted. Application stands disposed of.
Crl.A. /2005 Let the appeal be numbered.
It is pointed out that the appeal filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence (Crl.A.492/2000 & Crl.A.59/2001) in case FIR No. 32/97 under Sections 307/392/397/411/34 IPC is pending in this Court and the said appeals are to be heard together. List this appeal along with those appeals for hearing in due course.
A copy of the order be given dusty to learned standing counsel for the State and also forwarded to the Secretary (Law, Judicial and Legislative Affairs), Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for necessary action.