Delhi High Court
State Thru C.B.I. vs R.P.Tiwari on 24 September, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. No.219/2006
Decided on 24.09.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE THRU C.B.I. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate
Versus
R.P.TIWARI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Advocate
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. 13478/2006 (condonation of delay)
1. The present application is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for
condonation of delay of 180 days in preferring the accompanying criminal
leave to appeal petition in respect of a judgment of acquittal dated
04.04.2006 passed by the Special Judge, New Delhi.
2. A perusal of the file shows that initially, the petitioner had filed a four
paragraphs application to explain the delay of 180 days, which did not
satisfy the Court. As a result, vide order dated 06.02.2009, the petitioner
was directed to file an additional affidavit giving details in support of the
averments made in para 3 of the application.
3. An additional affidavit dated 23.06.2009 has been filed by the
petitioner with a copy to the other side. Reply thereto has also been filed
by the counsel for the respondent. It is stated in the additional affidavit
that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the
petitioner on 05.04.2006. Copy thereof was obtained on 15.04.2006 and
submitted to the Sr.PP for his comments on 26.04.2006 whereafter, the file
was submitted to the DIG, CBI on 20.05.2006. The period w.e.f.
20.05.2006 till 18.07.2006 has been explained in the affidavit by detailing
the manner, in which the file moved from one desk to the other, within the
Department.
4. The main grievance of the counsel for the respondent is that there is
no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay
for the period of 118 days, referred to in para 14 of the additional affidavit.
In para 14, it is stated that the CBI received a reply regarding approval by
the Department of Legal Affairs on 08.11.2006. She submits that the delay
of 118 days is inordinate and remains unexplained, particularly when in the
present case, the petitioner was conscious of the fact that the limitation for
preferring the appeal was to expire on 13.07.2006.
5. Counsel for the respondent is justified in stating that the Department
of Legal Affairs adopted a lackadaisical approach in processing the case file.
The Court is inclined to agree with her submission that when the matter
pertains to filing of an appeal in Court within the prescribed period of
limitation, then the Department of Legal Affairs, which is well versed with
the legal implications, is expected to be more vigilant and responsible in
processing the file. Instead, a perusal of the additional affidavit shows that
while within the Department, the file was not detained by any officer for an
unreasonably long time, but it is the Department of Legal Affairs alone, at
whose door, lies the delay of 118 days.
6. At the same time, it has been consistently held in a number of judicial
pronouncements that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial
justice and where there are no allegations of gross negligence, absence of
bonafides, or intentional delay/inaction attributable to a party, generally,
delays in preferring appeals, particularly when they are filed by the
Government, are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, as also
in public interest.(Refer: G.Ramegowda Major Vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897).
7. As also observed by this Court in Union of India Vs. Mahender Singh &
Ors. reported as 2010 (168) DLT 731 that, "the yardstick for examining
„just and sufficient cause‟ for the purposes of considering an application for
condonation of delay, where it relates to a Government department as
against private citizen, is therefore a little different for the reason that the
considerations which weigh with the Court include the fact that the decision
making process in a Government department takes much longer as it is
taken collectively and at an institutional level. Hence, the extent of latitude
granted to the Government is wider."
8. In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner ought to have taken a
prompt and timely decision to file the appeal and the matter ought to have
been pursued by the concerned officers with due care, diligence and
reasonable despatch, but having regard to the averments contained in the
additional affidavit and in view of the fact that at the end of the day, this is
an appeal preferred by the State against an acquittal order, which ought to
be decided on merits, instead of getting entangled in legal technicalities, the
present application is allowed. At the same time, directions are issued to
the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law to be more cautious in
future and ensure that matters where limitations are involved, are not
processed in such a casual manner, as is noticed in the present case, and a
system is put into place to ensure that there is a fixed time frame within the
hierarchy, for examining and returning the files to the concerned
department, where court cases are concerned, keeping in mind the limitation
prescribed under the Statute.
9. The application is allowed. The delay of 180 days in preferring the
accompanying petition is condoned.
10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the petitioner to the
Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, for perusal and compliance.
(HIMA KOHLI)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
