Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Narasimhamurthy on 13 December, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
CRL.A No. 1525 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by D 1. NARASIMHAMURTHY
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT S/O BALAPPA,
OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NAMILUGURKI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. SRI. ADI NARAYANAPPA
S/O THIRUMALAPPA,
NALLAGONDAIGORIHALLI VILLAGE,
GUDIBANDE TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
CRL.A No. 1525 of 2021
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 11.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.S.C.NO.11/2016, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 366A, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4
OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS
DAY, Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the
appellant on I.A.No.1/2021, which is filed under Section 5 of
the limitation Act for condonation of delay of 254 days in
filing this appeal.
2. Respondents though served have remained
absent.
3. Perused I.A.No.1/2021 filed under Section 5 of
the limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 254 days
in filing the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
4. In the affidavit accompanying the application,
which is sworn by learned Special Public Prosecutor, I
Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Chickaballapur,
from which Court the impugned judgment has come out, it is
stated that nearly a month after the pronouncement of the
judgment, application for certified copy of the judgment was
made. Though the copy of the application was filed on
07.08.2019, however, the certified copy of the judgment was
delivered only on 28.01.2020. It is thereafter, he took
sometime to give his opinion on the judgment, which he
gave on 12.02.2020. Then, the time was taken for
movement of the file in various sections of the law
Department in the Government. Thus, the delay has been
caused.
5. Primarily, it is not known as to when the alleged
delay said to have occurred is mainly at Government level in
the Department of Law, how come the deponent, who is only
a Special Public Prosecutor, who might have conducted the
case in the Session Judges Court can file an affidavit
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
explaining the delay, reasons for which is not to his
knowledge, except his role, to give his opinion, which he is
said to have given on 12.02.2020. After the said date of
12.02.2020 also, the appellant has taken more than three(3)
years to file an appeal, which delay has not been explained
either by the deponent or by the appellant.
6. In addition to the above, in his own affidavit, the
deponent himself has shown that even to apply certified
copy, he has taken nearly a months time. The said delay for
applying the certified copy has not been explained by him.
Secondly, the deponent has stated in the affidavit that
the certified copy of the judgment was delivered to him on
28.01.2020, whereas, the certified copy shows the date of
delivery as 12.11.2019. Thus, even in mentioning the date
also the deponent for the reasons best known to him has
shown two months later date, so that he can come out with
some false excuse to explain the delay. As such, the very
conduct of the deponent in explaining the delay being
suspicious is not believable. Further, as observed above,
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
even after he securing the judgment though with delay on
his part only and giving opinion by taking some more time
there upon, still there is three more years delay in preferring
the appeal, which has remained unexplained and no
sufficient cause is shown for the said reason.
7. We have been coming across in several of the
matters, where the State is the appellant that it is showing
least interest in explaining the delay and showing sufficient
cause in explaining the delay. On the contrary, in a
mechanical manner, believing that, since it is a State appeal,
the appeal would be condoned, it is filing a similar
applications in almost majority of the matters. Though we
have been considerate enough on several of such occasions
but still having seen enough we do not find any reason to
accept untenable reasons shown in the affidavit in the
application for consideration. Hence, we have no hesitation
to hold that the applicant/appellant has failed to show any
sufficient cause for delay.
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB
8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 stands dismissed as
devoid of merit. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed as
barred by limitation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
