Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Alladita @ Ataullah on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26775]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 47/2025
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
Alladita @ Ataullah S/o Kale Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Chak 1 S.r.w, Jhamela Wali Dhani, Village Panchayat Naivala Ps
Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 27/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. The State of Rajasthan seeks leave of this Court to challenge
the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Special
Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case
No.47/2018. The leave application is reported to have been filed
with a delay ranging from 184 days. An application seeking
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has
also been moved.
2. The application states that after pronouncement of the
impugned judgment on 30.04.2024, the Public Prosecutor of the
Trial Court applied for a certified copy of the judgment on
[2025:RJ-JD:26775] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-47/2025]
01.05.2024. Upon receiving the same on 06.05.2024, he
forwarded it to the District Collector, Hanumangarh under letter
dated 09.05.2024. Thereafter, on 15.05.2024, the District
Collector, Hanumangarh forwarded the judgment, along with the
trial court record and legal opinion, to the Department of Law and
Legal Affairs, Jaipur. Upon approval, the Law Department
sanctioned the filing of a leave petition and transmitted the matter
to the Office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur, on
05.12.2024. The leave petition was ultimately submitted before
this Court on 29.01.2025.
2.1. The crucial aspect of the matter is the inordinate delay
caused during the time the file remained pending--first, with the
Department of Law and Legal Affairs from 15.05.2024 to
26.11.2024, and thereafter, with the Government Advocate's
Office, Jodhpur, from 05.12.2024 to 29.01.2025. The application,
however, fails to mention any circumstances, deliberations, or
reasons explaining why the file remained pending during these
periods. In fact, there is not even a whisper in the application that
could satisfactorily explain or justify the delay.
2.2. An affidavit of the Public Prosecutor of the Trial Court is
annexed with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The affidavit, comprising merely four to five lines, sets out a
skeletal tabular timeline without disclosing any material facts,
reasons, or circumstances that could constitute a reasonable
explanation for the inordinate delay. It is trite law that an
application for condonation of delay must disclose bona fide
[2025:RJ-JD:26775] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-47/2025]
grounds preventing timely filing and must be duly supported by a
cogent and comprehensive affidavit. The present affidavit not only
fails to discharge that obligation but borders on being perfunctory
and mechanical. It contributes nothing of substance to the
adjudication of the issue and, for all practical purposes, is a mere
scrap of paper--a document of no evidentiary or legal value in
support of the application.
2.3. The Public Prosecutor does not enjoy any special right in the
matter of condonation of delay, and is to be treated like any
ordinary litigant. There is no provision in law that permits the
Court to condone bureaucratic lethargy or casual handling of such
matters by public officers. The affidavit of the Public Prosecutor,
who had completed his statutory duty upon forwarding the
judgment and record to the District Magistrate, Udaipur is of little
assistance. His role ceased at that point, and he cannot speak to
what transpired thereafter. His affidavit, therefore, is of no value
in explaining the delay, and amounts to nothing more than a
formality.
3. In such circumstances, the application is bereft of sufficient
cause and the delay remains unexplained. The State is directed to
obtain proper affidavits from responsible officers of the
Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Jaipur as well as from the
Office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur, clearly stating the
cause of delay during the respective periods the file remained
pending with them. Until such time, no indulgence can be shown.
[2025:RJ-JD:26775] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-47/2025]
4. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is
dismissed and consequently, the leave to appeal is also dismissed
as having been filed belatedly and without sufficient cause.
5. Ordered accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
97-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
