Delhi High Court
State vs Ram Parkash Gupta And Anr. on 31 August, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of an application for condensation of delay, being Crl. M.A. 241/2004, under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant along with an application for leave to appeal, being Crl. L.P. 7/2004.
2. The appellant sought to prefer an appeal against the order dated 23.3.2000 acquitting the respondents in a case of food adulteration. It is stated that there was a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. After the appeal was filed on 1.11.2000, the Registry raised certain objections and the file was collected back in order to remove the objections. However, the file got mixed up with other files lying in the office of standing counsel and the same could only be traced in the last week of June 2003 while sorting out other files and there was a delay of 2 years 8 months and 12 days in re-filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is further submitted that the Court should not look into the technicalities of law and only substantial justice should be done.
3. After receipt of application for leave to appeal and application for condensation of delay, record was sought from the trial Court in respect of the case and this Court was informed that the record had been destroyed on 8.6.2004 by the Judicial Officer posted in record room (Sessions). A copy of Goshwara Register showing destruction of trial court record, has been filed.
4. This is a case where delay in filing this appeal has defeated the purpose. The respondent in this case was convicted by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. He preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions acquitted the respondent after re-appreciating the entire evidence and the material placed before it. The appellant/State sought to prefer the appeal against the order of Additional Sessions Judge on the ground of miscarriage of justice due to acquittal of respondent. However, the grave miscarriage of justice was done by the State itself by first not filing this appeal within the period of limitation and then by not removing objections for about 3 years and re-filing the appeal after about 3 years. There is no satisfactory explanation given for delay of 2 years and 8 months in re-filing the appeal. The explanation that there was paucity of space in the office of standing counsel and the file got mixed up with other files is no explanation. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II v. Bluemax Spotwear has considered a similar matter and observed that if the department was not serious about the cases being conducted by it, there was no reason for it to waste everybody's time including time of the Court. The application for condensation of delay was dismissed by this Court.
5. I consider that there is no reason to allow this application, more so the record of the trial court has already been destroyed. Accordingly, the application for condensation of delay is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal also stands dismissed.
