Delhi High Court
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Dheeraj on 11 October, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 11 th October, 2017
+ CRL.L.P. 589/2017
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for the
State with SI Satish Kumar, PS
Aman Vihar.
versus
DHEERAJ ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No.16610/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.A.16609/2017 (delay)
3. This is an application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay
of 205 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons for the delay have
been set out in paragraphs 2 to 11 of this application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay is not on
account of inaction or negligence but for cogent reasons, which have been
detailed in the application. She submits that the Courts have taken a lenient
view while disposing of applications seeking condonation of delay.
Counsel relies upon Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987 (2) SCC
107 and State of Nagaland V. Lipok, 2005 (3) SCC 752 in support of her
submissions.
5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State/petitioner.
6. In our view, the application does not disclose sufficient grounds to
condone the delay of 205 days in filing the leave to appeal. In this case, the
judgment was delivered on 05.12.2016 and the certified copy was prepared
on 27.12.2016, which was received by the Department on 02.01.2017.
Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor of the trial Court prepared the
acquittal report on 07.01.2017 and thereafter, the matter was sent to
CP/NW who gave his opinion that the case is not fit for appeal. The same
was, however, forwarded to the Chief Prosecutor, Director of Prosecution.
Thereafter, the matter travelled up to the Lt. Governor and only reached the
office of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 12.09.2017. We have
in a recent decision in Crl.L.P.566/2016 titled as State vs. Tammane
delivered on 07.09.2017 held as under :-
6. Article 114 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963
provides that an appeal from an order of acquittal by the State
will have to be filed within a period of ninety days from the date
of the order appealed from. While inserting the provision the
Legislature, of course, had the internal administration of the
State in mind. We may also notice that previously the limitation
period was 6 months, which was consciously decreased to 3
months. The Law Commission of India in its 3 rd Report, on
which the Limitation Act, 1963 was based and introduced in
Parliament, had observed that even this period is too long. The
relevant portion reads as under:
"166. Article 157 provided a period of 6 months
limitation for an appeal against an order of acquittal.
The recent Act amending the Criminal Procedure Code
has substituted a period of 3 months for 6 months. We do
not propose any alteration of that period though we think
that even the present period is too long to enable the
State to make up its mind to file or not to file an appeal
against an order of acquittal. ..."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. We may also notice the following observations of the Apex
Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.,
(2012) 3 SCC 563:
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort,
there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the
file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape in the
process. The government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they perform their
duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the delay
except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable
and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge
delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. The same rationale was extended to petitions seeking leave
to appeal by a coordinate bench of this Court, of which one of
us (G.S. Sistani, J.) was a member, in State v. Harihar, 2016
SCC OnLine Del 2354: (2016) 230 DLT (CN A) 12 (DB)
(paragraphs 5-9) while dismissing a petition on the ground of
delay as the reasons were mechanical and stereotyped."
7. In our view, the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay
satisfactorily. The State which has the benefit of the Law Department
cannot be compared to a poor illiterate litigant. The department is well
aware that the period of limitation fixed for filing the leave to appeal is 90
days. The application simply discloses as to how the file was sent from one
department to another. In the case of Postmaster General (supra) the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending was not found acceptable.
Accordingly, we find no ground to condone the delay. The application is
dismissed.
8. We have also examined the judgment passed by the trial court and
have found no infirmity in the same. The trial court has acquitted the
respondent primarily on the ground that the victim was known to the
respondent. They were residing in the same Gali. There is unexplained
delay in registration of the FIR. There was no injury found on the body of
the victim. The hymen was torn prior to the occurrence of incident. The
prosecution was also unable to establish that the victim was minor. The
trial court also reached the conclusion that the claim of the victim that she
had not attained the majority was false.
CRL.L.P. 589/2017
9. In view of the order passed in Crl.M.A.16609/2017, the leave to
appeal petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
OCTOBER 11, 2017
rb
