Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Vinod Kumar on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-29762 of 2021 in/and
CRM-A-223 of 2021 (O&M)
DECIDED ON:6th December, 2022
State of Haryana
.....APPLICANT
VERSUS
Vinod Kumar
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)
1. The application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave
against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.1.2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Hisar, is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay
of 358 days.
2. Heard learned State counsel and perused the pleadings.
3. From the pleadings, it is forth coming that the non-applicant was
acquitted vide judgment dated 18.1.2019. On 18.2.2019 the District Attorney,
Hisar gave his opinion that it is a fit case for filing of an appeal. The Vigilance
Department on 10.4.2019 took a decision that appeal is to be field against
acquittal, thereafter the appeal was filed on 9th July, 2020.
4. There is no explanation for the period of more than eleven months
taken to file the appeal.
5. The Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General
and others Versus Living Media India Ltd. And another, 2012 AIR (Supreme
Court), 1506 as held as under:
1 of 3
CRM-29762 of 2021 in/and
CRM-A-223 of 2021 (O&M) -2-
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there
was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years
due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process.
The government departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not
be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was
no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay
except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and
cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay.
6. The Supreme Court in The State of Bihar and others Versus Deo
Kumar Singh and others Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.13348 of
2019, decided on 9.5.2019 considering its decision in Chief Post Master
General case (supra), held that condonation of delay is no more admissible on
the pretext of lethargic working of Government.
7. In case of Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Versus The State of
West Bengal 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 534, the Supreme Court held that the delay in
filing the appeal or revision cannot be mechanically condoned, in the absence of
'sufficient cause' for delay.
8. No explanation has been put forth for the delay in filing the
appeal/application.
2 of 3
CRM-29762 of 2021 in/and
CRM-A-223 of 2021 (O&M) -3-
9. In absence of any explanation worth acceptance , the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the application under Section
378 (3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed as time barred.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN)
th
6 December, 2022 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
