Delhi High Court
State (Gnct) Of Delhi vs Om Parkash & Ors on 12 May, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. No.115/2009
Date of Decision : 12.05.2011
STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI ...... Petitioner
Through: Nemo
Versus
OM PARKASH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a leave to appeal filed by the State against the
judgment dated 26.5.2008 passed by the learned ASJ
Karkardooma Court, Delhi in respect of an FIR no.40/2005,
under Section 498A/304-B IPC registered by P.S. Khajuri
Khas.
2. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Sessions
Judge has acquitted the accused/respondents by holding that
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused persons had subjected the deceased to any
torture or harassment with a view to demand dowry soon
before her death.
Crl.L.P. No.115/2009 Page 1 of 6
3. Along with the leave to appeal, an application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay of
145 days after deducting ten days in obtaining the certified
copy. The only averment which has been made in the
application is that the judgment was delivered on 26.5.2008,
which is stated to be illegal and liable to be set aside and
quashed.
4. It is stated that after obtaining various legal opinions, a
decision was taken to file an appeal on 2.12.2008 and the file
was received in the office of the learned counsel on 3.12.2008.
Certified copies of the judgment and the statement of
witnesses were delivered to the learned counsel on 20.1.2009
and accordingly, the appeal was prepared by the learned APP
on the next day and hence by the time the appeal was filed,
there was a delay of 145 days. Ten days have been deducted
from the number of days delay in obtaining the certified copy.
No reply to the application has been filed by the respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and the
respondent. I have gone through the record.
6. The learned counsel for the State has contended that the
delay was occasioned on account of the time taken in
deciding whether to file an appeal or not, as the file had to be
processed through various Departments. It has been stated
that Apex Court in the case titled State of Nagaland Vs.
Lipok AO AIR 2005 SC 2191 has observed that while
Crl.L.P. No.115/2009 Page 2 of 6
considering the question of condonation of delay, the Court
must take a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach rather
than technical view of the words 'sufficient cause' for
explaining every day's delay. On the basis of the aforesaid
facts and judgment, a prayer, seeking condonation of delay
has been made.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent has
relied upon a case titled UOI & Ors. Vs. Nripen Sarma 2001
STPL (Web) 157 SC (1) wherein the Apex Court has justified
the dismissal of the appeal filed by the State, in the High
Court of Delhi wherein delay was not condoned, it was
observed that 'sufficient cause' was not shown.
8. It was observed in the said judgment that the delay
occasioned in the said case was on account of the fact that
the respondents had taken their own sweet time in reaching
to the conclusion as to whether an appeal should be preferred
against the judgment or not.
9. I have considered the respective submissions and have gone
through the record.
10. At the outset, it must be observed that there is no dispute
about the fact that Supreme Court in State of Nagaland
(supra) has clearly observed that although no special
indulgence can be shown towards the State, but certain
amount of indulgence to the State is not impermissible on
account of the fact that in the case of Government, officials
Crl.L.P. No.115/2009 Page 3 of 6
tend to cause delay intentional or otherwise in processing the
files. It is also correct that the word 'sufficient cause' shall be
considered, in the case of State appeals, with pragmatism and
justice oriented approach as observed by the Apex Court.
11. Having regard to the same, one cannot ignore the fact that
such an approach has to be observed provided full particulars
are disclosed in the application filed by the State seeking
condonation of delay and not when the averments in the
application are sketchy and without any information.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind by order of an acquittal
which is passed in favour a person, a vested right is created
in his favour on the basis of a judicial finding and that should
not be disturbed until cogent reasons are shown. In all such
cases, where the acquittal takes place, the prosecution must
show that they are acting with utmost dispatch to have their
grievance redressed at the earliest rather than going through
the red tape where each of the officials takes decision
according to their own whims and fancies.
12. The judgment has been delivered on 26.5.2008. Not even a
single date has been given as to when the certified copy of the
judgment was applied for and when it was obtained. On the
contrary, if one goes through the averments made in the
application, the certified copies have been applied for after an
expiry of four months. This clearly shows that there was
complete ignorance on the part of the officials of the State in
Crl.L.P. No.115/2009 Page 4 of 6
obtaining the certified copy within the time permissible to file
the appeal. Curiously enough, though the certified copy has
been applied after expiry of a period of filing the appeal, yet
the period spent in obtaining the said certified copy has been
deducted from the total period of delay, which is totally
impermissible.
13. It has been stated in the application that after obtaining
various legal opinions, a decision was taken on 2.12.2008,
the details of the persons from whom the opinion has been
obtained, number of days the official took in giving this
opinion has not been disclosed at all. Thus, the application is
not giving the full details.
14. On the contrary, it has been stated that on 2.12.2008, a
decision was taken to file an appeal that is almost after 6½
months from the date of passing of the judgment. Such a
callous attitude on the part of the State, in such an important
matter where the person has been acquitted in respect of an
offence under Section 304B IPC and an offence under Section
498A Cr.P.C. cannot be countenanced. It is further stated
that after obtaining the opinion, only certified copy has been
applied for. The details have not been given in the
application. Thus, in my considered opinion, the judgment
which has been relied upon by the State seeking condonation
of delay does not come to the rescue of the appellants as the
application is devoid of any details and therefore, even in
Crl.L.P. No.115/2009 Page 5 of 6
such a case the delay cannot be condoned as no 'sufficient
cause' has been shown.
15. I accordingly, dismiss the application seeking condonation of
delay and as the application has been dismissed, there is
absolutely no ground to grant the leave to appeal and
accordingly, the same is also dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 12, 2011
RN
