Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Through Sho Police Station ... vs Dhani Ram on 28 December, 2021
Sr. No.6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CONCR No.50/2014
c/w
CRAA No.51/2014
State through SHO Police Station Majalta ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- None.
V/s
Dhani Ram ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Gandotra, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
ORDER
28.12.2021
1. Instant application has been moved by the appellant/State
seeking to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the accompanied criminal
acquittal appeal.
2. The matter was called in the first half however no one had caused
appearance on behalf of the applicant and as such it was passed over. In the
second round also, no one appeared for the applicant, therefore this Court is
left with no other option but to consider and decide this matter on the basis of
pleadings.
3. On going through the contents of the application it comes to fore
that it has been drafted in a very vague and casual manner. No details with
regard to justifying the delay have been explained in it. It is no where
mentioned when the certified copy is obtained and thereafter on which date it
has been forwarded to Government for sanction.
CRAA No.51/2014
4. The applicant has failed to give any cogent reason for the 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. 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
CRAA No.51/2014
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]...."
5. My view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, titled as „P.K. Ramachadran
v. State of Kerala‟ wherein at para 6 it is noticed:
"6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all
its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the
Courts have no power to extend the period of
limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion
exercised by the High Court was thus, neither
proper nor judicious. The order condoning the
delay cannot be sustained. This appeal,
therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is
set aside. Consequently, the application for
condonation of delay filed in the High Court
would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous
First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by
time. No costs."
CRAA No.51/2014
6. The application in hand apparently, is filed with the impression
that in seeking condonation of delay, the expression 'sufficient cause' would
receive as liberal construction in favor of the applicant. It is however,
manifest and without any doubt that the explanation offered by the applicant
in the application in hand cannot by any sense of imagination said to be
sufficient, plausible, and cogent. The explanation per se is cryptic and casual.
7. Viewed in the context what has been observed, considered and
analyzed hereinabove, the application in hand is found to be without any
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, as a consequence whereof the
accompanying criminal acquittal appeal shall also stand dismissed.
(Tashi Rabstan)
Judge
Jammu:
28.12.2021
Surinder
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
SURINDER KUMAR
2021.12.29 14:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
