The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sitaram Sen
2021 Latest Caselaw 3343 MP

                                      1

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          MCRC No.18449/2020
                    (STATE OF M.P. VS. SITARAM SEN)

                      Through Video Conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 15/07/2021

         Shri Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

applicant/State.

         Shri Anvesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on I.A.No.5765/2020, an application for condonation of

delay.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

impugned judgment was passed on 22/10/2019 and sanction for filing

of appeal was sought. The sanction was granted, however, by that

time, the Lockdown was imposed and the appeal could not be filed

immediately after grant of sanction.

Under these circumstances, it is prayed that there is a sufficient

cause for not filing the appeal within a period of limitation.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the applicant has not

disclosed the date on which documents were sent for grant of

sanction was made. Further the date of sanction has also not been

disclosed. However, it is fairly conceded that with effect from

24/03/2020 there was a complete Lockdown in the Country.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that before filing the

appeal, sanction from the department is necessary. It is equally true,

that the department functions through its employees. In the present

case, there is no exorbitant delay in filing the application for grant of

leave to appeal, as complete lockdown was imposed w.e.f. 24-3-2020.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made

out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, I.A.No.5765/2020 for condonation of delay is

allowed. The delay in filing the application for grant of leave to

appeal is hereby condoned.

The record of the Court below has been received.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Trial

Court has given a finding that the applicant was found in possession

of tainted currency notes but has acquitted him on the ground that the

prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was working as a

Kotwar and sanction was granted without application of mind.

It is submitted that when the prosecution issued a notice to the

respondent to give his sample of voice in order to verify as to

whether his voice is in the recorded conversation or not, then in reply

it was admitted by the respondent that recorded conversation was of

the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent had also

admitted that he is Kotwar. It is further submitted that the Trial Court

has acquitted the respondent on flimsy grounds by ignoring evidence

of demand as well as recovery of the tainted currency notes.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for

grant of leave to appeal, accordingly, leave is granted.

The office is directed to register this case as Criminal Appeal.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.

Since the respondent is already represented, therefore, there is

no need to issue any bailable warrant of arrest against him. The

respondent is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on

20/09/2022 and all other dates, which may be fixed by the Registry in

this regard.

The application for grant of leave to appeal is finally disposed

of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Pj'S/-

PRINCEE BARAIYA 2021.07.16 12:12:57 +05'30'