Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pawan Kumar Tigga @ Mannu on 1 July, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23050
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 217 of 2021
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Ambikapur , District Surguja
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumar Tigga @ Mannu S/o Prithvi Sen Tigga Aged About 32 Years
Resident Of Near Namanakala , Temple , New Bus Stand , Police Station
Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
01/07/2024
1. The present petition has been iled under Section 378(3) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal.
2. Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No. 01/2021, an
application for condonation of delay.
3. Learned Counsel for the State contended that the impugned
order was passed on 23.11.2019 by the learned Court below
and thereafter the Law and Legislative Afairs Department,
Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur on
07.02.2020 sent a proposal to the oice of the Advocate
General to ile an acquittal against the impugned judgment and
order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Learned Court below.
Thereafter, the case was placed before the Advocate General
and then the case was marked for drafting acquittal appeal
against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2019
passed by the learned Court below. Thereafter, drafting the
appeal proceedings was initiated and letter was written on
29.06.2020 for appointment of OIC for bringing all the relevant
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23050
records concerning the trial. Due to the spread of Pandemic
since February, 2020, the regular working was hampered. Also
the police oicials were engaged in maintaining law and order
as well as in Covid duty, which resulted in the delay. As per the
said proposal oice initiated proceeding and certiied copy of
the impugned order and other relevant exhibited documents
have been received from the concerned department and
thereafter the instant acquittal appeal was prepared and iled
before the Hon'ble Court. After obtaining necessary documents
and information with respect to the case the instant acquittal
appeal was prepared and iled before this Hon'ble Court,
however, some delay was occurred due to fulillment of various
departmental formalities and working of the Government
machinery. State Government is a multi-functioning body,
hence, at times the fulillment of departmental formalities takes
unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is
prevented from iling the case within the prescribed period of
limitation, which is bonaide and not deliberate. The instant
appeal is, therefore, being ile after a delay of 348 days from the
prescribed period of limitation.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs.
ChandraMani and Others (1996) 3 SCC 132 in para 11, held
that:-
"It is notorious and common knowledge that
delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases iled
in this Court - be it by private party or the State -
are barred by limitation and this Court generally
adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay
inding somewhat suicient cause to decide the
appeal on merits. It is equally common
knowledge that litigants including the State are
accorded the same treatment and the law is
administered in an even-handed manner. When
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23050
the State is an applicant, praying for
condonation of delay, it is common knowledge
that on account of impersonal machinery and
the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued
with the note-marking, ile pushing and passing
on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State
is less diicult to understand though more
diicult to approve, bu the State represents
collective cause of the community. It is
axiomatic that decision are taken by the
oicers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and
encumbered process of pushing the iles from
table and keeping it on table for considerable
time causing delay-intentional or otherwise is a
routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-
tape in the process of their making decision is a
common feature. Therefore, certain amount of
latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals
brought by the State are lost for such default no
person is individually afected but what in the
ultimate analysis sufers, is public interest. The
expression "suicient cause" should, therefore,
be considered with pragmatism in justice-
oriented approach rather than the technical
detection of suicient cause for explaining every
day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to
and characteristic of the functioning of the
Governmental conditions would be cognizant to
and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in
justice-oriented process. The Court should
decide the matters on merits unless the case is
hopelessly without merit."
5. In the matter of DDA Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23050
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54 in Para No. 9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that:
"9. We are further of the view that, delay in iling
the special leave petitions deserves to be
condoned because after having learnt about the
impugned judgment, the functionaries concerned
of DDA took steps to collect the papers relating
to the acquisition proceedings, sought opinion of
the Advocate-on-Record and the Solicitor
General and then iled the special leave petitions.
In the facts of this case, it is appropriate to
invoke the principles laid down in "Collector (LA)
Vs. Katiji"; reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107 and
State of Haryana Vs ChandraMani; reported in
1996 (3) SCC 132" for the purpose of
condonation of delay. Accordingly, the
application iled by the DDA for grant of
permission to challenge the judgment of the High
Court is allowed and delay in iling of the special
leave petitions is condoned. Leave granted."
6. In the light of the above judgment and for the reasons
mentioned by the Learned Government Advocate, I am inclined
to allow the application I.A. No. 01/2021. Therefore, the delay of
almost 348 days are hereby condoned.
7. Petition being arguable is admitted for hearing.
8. Perused the impugned judgment and gone through the other
materials available on record.
9. On due consideration, the application is allowed and leave is
granted.
10. Registry is directed to register the present Cr.M.P. under the
head of "Acquittal Appeal".
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23050
11. In view of the above, the present Cr.M.P. stands disposed of.
12. Call for the records from the concerned Trial Court.
13. List this case thereafter for inal hearing.
SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Madhurima
