Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 152 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. KISHAN CHAND

2000-07-03

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, Judge : - The State of Himachal Pradesh (here-after referred to as "the applicant") by this application has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 21.2.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi thereby acquitting the respondents of a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. As per the contents of the application, there is delay of 458 days in filing the appeal. A part of this delay includes the period during which the appeal papers on its return remained pending with the State Government for removal of the objections which delay in re-filing the appeal has already been condoned vide order dated 11-5-2000. This application, therefore, requires consideration only for the period of delay not condoned by the aforesaid order and which relates to the delay in filing the present appeal initially. 3. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the material placed before me. 4. It has been contended for the State that the delay in matter resulted due to the correspondence with the District Magistrate, Mandi and was not intentional or deliberate whereas it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5. I am not unmindful of the proposition that the State may not be required to explain day-to-day delay in filing its causes and more so if the public interest involved in the case requires that the matter be heard on merits. However, this does not mean that the law of limitation does not apply to the State and it is at liberty to institute cases/appeals regardless of the period of limitation as prescribed by the statutes. It may be noticed that the State has very vast means at its disposal to take timely steps in furtherance of any cause what-so-ever. However, this does not mean that the law of limitation does not apply to the State and it is at liberty to institute cases/appeals regardless of the period of limitation as prescribed by the statutes. It may be noticed that the State has very vast means at its disposal to take timely steps in furtherance of any cause what-so-ever. Therefore, any latitude in the application of law of limitation to the State case with all its rigours may not only prejudice the vested rights of the affected persons but may also give scope for an official to sit over the matter with a view to allow the period of limitation to expire and thereby show undesirable, rather illegal favour to the affected party. 6. In this case the State had obtained copy of the judgment on 4.4.97 and the appeal was initially filed on 4.10-1997 i.e. after the expiry of six months from the date of receipt of the copy. The reason for this delay as explained in the application is that the concerned District Magistrate was required by a fax message on 17.5.1997 to supply a complete copy of the judgment as two pages thereof were found missing by the Law Department. It cannot be lost sight of that a fax message is not a routine matter but such message is of urgent nature intended to give immediate information and to seek immediate compliance. Despite this, the requisite copy was sent to the Home Department after the expiry of more than two months and was received in the Home Department on 29.7.1997. There is no explanation what-so-ever as to why the delay of two months occurred in making the , proper copy of the judgment available to the State whereas the concerned District Magistrate himself is the incharge and supervisory officer of the Copying Agency and as and when urgent copies are applied for, they are supposed to be supplied within twenty-four hours. Evidently, the office of the District Magistrate was grossly negligent in making the requisite copy available within the prescribed period. Thus, the application does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. It is well-settled that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigorous though at times it may cause some injustice to a party. Otherwise, the very purpose of law of limitation will stand frustrated and nullified. 8. Thus, the application does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. It is well-settled that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigorous though at times it may cause some injustice to a party. Otherwise, the very purpose of law of limitation will stand frustrated and nullified. 8. Even on merits, I do not find it to be a case where the interest of justice may be involved and have to be taken into account in considering the prayer for condonation of delay. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit and substance in this application which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that this court has come across with large number of criminal appeals preferred by the State after long delays and most of the appeals so preferred remain under objections for years together. As stated here-in-above, some times delay may be caused only with a view to show favour to a party, therefore, it is expedient that the State ensures that the matters concerning filing appeals in criminal cases are dealt with expeditiously and within limitation and a constant check is kept in timely processing thereof and in the event of inordinate delay, fix the responsibility on the concerned official/officer who may be responsible for the delay and take suitable action against such official/officer to ensure that the filing of the appeals is not inordinate delayed on account of their inaction/negligence. 11. In view of these observation, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Himachal Pradesh for information of the State and action.