Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1935 (MAD)

. v. .

2012-04-17

T.SUDANTHIRAM

body2012
Judgment : T. Sudanthiram, J. 1. The petitioner herein is E.S.I. Corporation. The respondent herein is the accused in C.C.No.10253 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The accused was acquitted by the leaned Magistrate by an order dated 08.10.2007 for the offence under Section 85(A) punishable under Section 85(i) (b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. Challenging the said acquittal, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before this Court, but there is a delay of 859 days in preferring the said appeal. Therefore, this petition seeking to condone the delay has been filed along with an affidavit of one T.Rangaraj, working as Superintendent in appellant/E.S.I. Corporation. 2. In this matter, notice was ordered to the respondent and though private notice also was served on the respondent, the respondent has not made appearance. Therefore, Legal Aid Counsel was appointed to represent the case on behalf of the respondent. But even the Legal Aid Counsel not represented. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was only due to administrative procedure in getting approval from the higher authorities. The formalities were to be complied with and therefore, there had been a delay of 859 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the length of the delay should not be taken into account but the sufficient cause should be taken into account and he prayed this Court to use the discretion. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that especially the finding of the trial Court in this case would lead to wrong decision in other case also. Therefore, preferring an appeal is important in this matter and if the petition seeking to condone the delay is dismissed by this Court, it would cause grave miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5692 [State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ahmed Jaan], wherein, at paragraph No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "16. We find that the appellant had indicated the reasons for the delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition. The High Court unfortunately did not deal with those explanations and merely stated that the delay has not been explained. Ahmed Jaan], wherein, at paragraph No.16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "16. We find that the appellant had indicated the reasons for the delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition. The High Court unfortunately did not deal with those explanations and merely stated that the delay has not been explained. The High Court was required to examine the correctness of the explanation given, keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in several cases. According to us, the explanations offered were plausible and deserved to be accepted. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it to hear the Criminal Revision on merits. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits." 4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of E.S.I. Corporation. 5. In the affidavit, the reason given by the petitioner is, "Due to administrative procedure the delay is caused in getting approval from the higher authorities. The formalities in getting instructions and relevant papers also are causes for the delay." 6. Except the above words, no other details were given in the affidavit. The judgment was pronounced by the trial Court on 08.10.2007 and the certified copy of the judgment which is filed for preferring the appeal had been obtained as early as on 15.10.2007 itself. But the appeal is filed before this Court only on 02.08.2010. Absolutely, no details were given by the petitioner after receiving the certified copy of the judgment as to what procedure was taken; where was the file; where the delay was caused and what was the difficulty in getting approval from the higher authorities. A bald affidavit only has been filed and it is expected from this Court by the petitioner to condone the delay even if it is enormous. 7. Even in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1748 (State of Nagaland Vs. 7. Even in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1748 (State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and others), is referred, in which, it is observed as follows:- "It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on the table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal, needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants." (emphasis supplied by this Court) 8. The occurrence relates to the years from 1995 to 2001. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants." (emphasis supplied by this Court) 8. The occurrence relates to the years from 1995 to 2001. The case was filed before the trial Court only in the year 2003 and the judgment was delivered in the year 2007. Now, more than four years had elapsed from the date of judgment and more than a decade had elapsed from the date of alleged offence. The delay of 859 days being enormous. Apart from that the petitioner did not explain the delay in detail so as to enable this Court to examine the correctness of the explanation given. Merely it is stated by the petitioner that the delay was due to administrative procedure. This Court is not prepared to condone the delay as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner to condone the delay, this petition is dismissed.