State Of J & K vs Raj Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1614 j&K

                                                                       Sr. No. 14



       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                                SLA No. 114/2015
                                                in
                                                CONCR No. 100/2015

State of J & K                                        ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)


                 Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG


         V/s

Raj Kumar                                                     ....Respondent(s)

                 Through :-   None.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

06.12.2021

1. The applicant has filed the application for condonation of delay of 63

days in filing the appeal against judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua in File No. 50 Sessions/16 Sessions in case

title State v. Raj Kumar under Section 420/467/468/471 RPC.

2. Before dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay, it

would be appropriate to have a cursory look on the judgment impugned so as to

ascertain as to whether the appellant has a prima facie case to entertain the

appeal or not.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2001, the police Station

Kathua has received an information through reliable sources that the accused

namely Raj Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Ram R/o Nanak Chak was issuing fake

certificates to students seeking admissions in different colleges for his personal

gains and the accused himself is preparing stamps/seals of Chief Education

Officer, Kathua and forged certificates of Zonal Education Officer so as to

defraud the youth and issuing them forged certificates. In this regard, FIR No.

176/2001 has been registered with Police Station Kathua for commission of

offence punishable under Section 467/468/471/420 RPC and accordingly the

investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector Pradeep Kumar Sharma. The

statements of witnesses under Section 161-Cr.P.C were recorded and prima facie

offence under Sections 461/468/471/420 RPC was established against the

accused. The challan was produced on 30.05.2003 before the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua who committed the same to the Court of

worthy Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua. Subsequently, the same was

transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua on 04.07.2007. The

accused had denied all the charges levelled against him to which the trial has

been commenced.

4. The prosecution has cited 20 witnesses, however, during the trial only six

witnesses were examined. PW-1 Ramesh Chander was an eye witness and a

witness to the seizure memos but he being a police personnel failed to appear in

the witness box. PW-3 Som Raj deposed that about 8/9 years back, he was called

by the police concerned and before his reaching on spot police had already

opened the almirah in the house of Nasib Chand and some papers and stamps

were found in the almirah. Police started counting the papers, however, he has

not seen those papers because he was in a hurry and was going to the duty. He

further deposed that he has seen those seized stamps in the court today but could

not identify them. Seizure memo of the certificates and stamps does not bear his

signatures as is seen in the seizure memo. He further deposed that he never put

his signatures as is seen in the seizure memo. He had not signed in this case

before the police and accordingly he was declared hostile. PW-Challo Ram

refused to recognize the accused. PW-Biru Ram has been cited as a witness to

prove the circumstances, however, he too was turned hostile. The PW-8 Subash

Chander Naib Tehsildar stated in his cross-examination that the Stamps/seals

were given to him in loose state. PW-Jitender Kumar was cited as a witness to

prove the accused and his house, however, he deposed that he does not know

anything about the case. Even in cross-examination done by Assistant Public

Prosecutor, the PW-Jatinder Sharma stated that he is aware that in 2002-03, there

was a private school named Saraswati Vidhalaya at Kalibari whose principal was

Raj Kumar. He has given Rs. 1000/- to the accused-Raj Kumar for procuring

pass certificate of 8th class. Even he also deposed that it is wrong to state that

when he had gone to take that certificates, the said PW-Jitender Kumar also has

took u-turn and stated that he did not know anything about the case. Therefore,

the prosecution also failed to prove the accused. PW-Pradeep Sharma, one of the

Investigating Officers who conducted part of the investigation appeared in

witness box and deposed that FIR was registered on the basis of an information

received from reliable sources, however, he deposed that the certificates seized

by him were not resealed and in cross-examination he stated that he did not

procure any warrant for searching the house of Nasib Chand at Kalibari and nor

applied for the same. He also deposed that he did not procure any rent deed or

any documents with regard to hiring of the room. He had also not recorded the

statement of Nasib Chand. It is also deposed by him that he does not remember

that the almirah from which 46 certificates and stamps were recovered was

locked or opened. The later part of the investigation has been carried by other

Investigating Officers who have failed to appear in the witness box. A perusal of

the judgment reveals that a handwriting expert has been examined so as to prove

the prosecution with regard to such forgery. All the civilian witnesses produced

by the prosecution have either turned hostile or not proved the allegations. Even

the prosecution has failed to produce the police witnesses and other official

witnesses to the witness box after a lapse of more than seven years of the trial.

Thus, after appreciation of evidence led by learned counsel for the

parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua came to the conclusion

that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against

the accused.

5. In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal

against the judgment dated 27.03.2015, it is contended that the sanction was

accorded by the Government to file the appeal on 06.07.2015 and the case was

handed over to learned Additional Advocate General on 21.07.2015 and the

appeal along with condonation of delay application was filed before this Court on

01.09.2015, therefore it took more than two months time to file the appeal after

sanction is accorded. It shows that the applicant-State is not serious in filing the

appeal. Even the application has also been drafted in a very vague and casual

manner. The applicant has failed to give any cogent reason for this delay, let

alone explain day-to-day delay in filing the appeal. Delay in filing appeal after the

statutory period of limitation prescribed cannot be condoned as a matter of

course. The party seeking condonation of delay was required to satisfy the Court

that there was sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Merely saying that

the delay was on account of procedural aspect, is not sufficient cause to condone

the delay.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).19846/2020

titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., decided on

04.02.2021 while dismissing it on account of delay observed as under:-

"We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake!

The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]...."

7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion made hereinabove, I do not

find any merit in the application seeking delay of 63 days in filing the appeal and

as such the same deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, condonation of delay

application is dismissed. Resultantly, in light of dismissal of condonation of

delay application, SLA No. 114/2015 shall also stand dismissed.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu:

06.12.2021
Sahil T

                           Whether the order is speaking?                 Yes/No
                           Whether the order is reportable?               Yes/No