Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Kirana @ Kiran Kumar on 13 December, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB
CRL.A No. 959 of 2023
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. 959 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KIRANA @ KIRAN KUMAR
SON OF DAYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ,
RESIDENT AT SOMENAHALLI
GANDASI HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK
Digitally signed by D
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.08.2022 IN
S.C.NO.10005/2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPATUR, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
324, 307, 504 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB
CRL.A No. 959 of 2023
ORDER
In order to see whether I.A.No.1/2023 deserves issuance
of notice upon the respondent, we have heard the submission
of learned High Court Government Pleader, who is physically
present for the appellant.
2. Perused I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Section 5 of the
limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in filing
the appeal.
3. In the affidavit accompanying the application, one
Sri. L.M. Yelsangikar, who is said to be the Deputy Director of
Prosecution has stated that though the impugned judgment
was delivered on 25.08.2022 and immediately application was
filed for certified copy and the same was received on
09.09.2022, however, the opinion from the concerned
Department reached the Director of Prosecution only on
20.01.2023. He has further stated that the
opinion was furnished by the Director of Prosecution on
04.02.2023, which the deponent received and he furnished the
opinion on 22.02.2023. It is thereafter, the matter went to the
Principal Secretary Home Department, who also accorded
NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB
permission vide its order dated 03.03.2023. Thus, even
according to the deponent, from August, 2022 till the first week
of March 2023, the time was consumed only in procedural
aspect of obtaining permission. Though the deponent has
given a chronology of events that has taken place but the
deponent has no where whispered the cause for the delay at
each level in several sections of Department.
4. Mere mentioning the chronology of events is not
explanation of delay showing the sufficient cause for the delay.
The time consumed at each of the section in discharging their
duty, which resultantly has caused the delay in forwarding the
matter to the next concerned section is required to be
explained properly, which the deponent has failed to do in the
affidavit under consideration. Added to the above, even though
the Principle Secretary of Home Department is shown to have
accorded its permission to prefer an appeal on 03.03.2023 itself
still the office of the Advocate General has taken one more
month time to prefer the appeal. Since by that time the file
reached its office, the office of the Advocate General was
already aware that the time prescribed under law has already
been expired to prefer an appeal, it should have expedited the
NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB
matter in preferring an appeal at the earliest. However, it also
took enormous time of not less than a month in preferring the
appeal though it received the sanction by the Government, which
was delayed.
More over, the said delay caused in Advocate General office
has not been explained by any competent official from the
Advocate General office. Even the deponent, though is not the
part of the Advocate General office also has not explained the
delay caused in Advocate General Office in preferring the appeal
even after obtaining the sanction by the Government.
Under the above circumstance, it has to be inferred that
like in many other matter, the State as an appellant is taking the
matter of delay too lightly without giving the necessary attention
to which the matter deserves, probably, under the impression that
since it is the State appeal, the Court would condone the delay.
Having seen several such instances and repeatedly bringing to the
notice of the appellant that mere giving chronology of events is
not sufficient, unless it explains the delay, we find no
improvement in their discharging of work. Under such
circumstances, even ordering a notice to the respondent on
I.A.No.1/2023 would be of showing an undeserving favour to
the appellant in the matter in the
NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB
circumstance of the case. Hence, we do not find any reason
even to order notice on I.A.No.1/2023 upon the respondent.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 stands dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by
limitation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
