Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 951 (JK)

State of J&K v. Sher Mohd. Khan

2018-12-03

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J. CONCR No. 102/2017 1. The applicant/petitioner has filed the instant application seeking condonation of 628 days delay in filing the Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu whereby the respondent has been acquitted. 2. It is stated in the application that the judgment was announced on 30.10.2015 and the application for issuance of certified copy of judgment was filed on the same day, which was issued on 10.11.2015. It is further stated that the matter was taken up with the Law Department for the grant of sanction letter, which was accorded for filing of appeal vide Government Order No. 513-LD(ACQ) of 2016, dated 12.02.2016. The sanction was accorded in the name of Sh. Rakesh Khajuria AAG, however, meanwhile Sh. Rakesh Khajuria, ceased to be the AAG, as such the matter was again taken up with Law Department. The Law Department issued Corrigendum to Government on 21.11.2016, in the name of Smt. Seema Khajuria, Sr. AAG. However, meanwhile, Smt. Seema Khajuria, Sr. AAG ceased to be the Sr. AAG, as such the matter was again taken up with Law Department. The Law Department issued another Corrigendum on 22.08.2017 whereby Sh. Raman Sharma, Dy. AG has been authorized to file the aforesaid Acquittal Appeal. It is further stated that the appellant on receipt of the communication has immediately contacted his learned counsel and steps were taken for drafting of the appeal against the judgment impugned. The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but because of the circumstances detailed above. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled "State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors.", reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191 . On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled "Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.". 5. From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that accused has been acquitted on 30.10.2015; sanction for filing appeal has been granted on 12.02.2016, after about four months. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.". 5. From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that accused has been acquitted on 30.10.2015; sanction for filing appeal has been granted on 12.02.2016, after about four months. But present petition has been filed on 28.10.2017, after more than one and half years; so total delay in filing the appeal is 628 days from the date of judgment. 6. Rules of limitation are prima facie rules of procedure and do not create any rights in favour of any person nor do they define or create cause of action but simply prescribe that the remedy could be exercised only upto a certain period and not beyond it. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not to be liberally construed to such an extent that the rules are rendered in consequential and reduced to a 'dead provision' on the State book. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner so as to save the system from anarchy. Why should there be a time frame prescribed under law for a legal remedy? Law of Limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy. Time is precious and the wasted time would never resist. So, a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead of ending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. It is enshrined in maxim, "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigant). Every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. The Rules of Limitation are not superfluous or vestigial but are to be interpreted in a meaningful manner, so as to save the system from anarchy. Although certain latitude must be given state in filing appeal that does not mean that law of limitation in filing the appeal shall be become redundant or superfluous. Law is also clear each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent. 7. Law is also clear each day after limitation time, is required to be explained by cogent means. It cannot be set aside on flimsy grounds and at the wish of applicant who remained all along negligent. 7. In present case, so far as the averments made in the application are concerned, it may be said that the application has been drafted in a most' casual manner and absolutely no details have been given for the reasons as to why a delay of 628 days had occurred. Even if this Court wanted to show indulgence to the appellant, being a Government body, it finds if difficult to help the appellant as it has been guilty of gross negligence. No date, on which the different officers dealt with the file, has been given; there is a gross negligence on the part of the department. There is so much of gross negligence on the part of the appellant that even the word 'sufficient cause' has not been used by them in the application. After the expiry of period of limitation a vested right is created in a party which cannot be defeated easily. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment titled State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. (supra) is not applicable in the present set of circumstance because in that judgment there was delay of 57 days had been occurred, but in the present case the delay of 628 days (more than one and half years) has been occurred. Applicant has miserably failed to satisfy the court with regard to delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. Even after getting the permission from Law Department to file petition on 12.02.2016, the State remained silent for more than one and half years in filing the present petition and filed present application on flimsy grounds. Court cannot come to rescue of a litigant who always remained careless. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay. 9. Even after getting the permission from Law Department to file petition on 12.02.2016, the State remained silent for more than one and half years in filing the present petition and filed present application on flimsy grounds. Court cannot come to rescue of a litigant who always remained careless. No sufficient grounds have been shown for condoning the delay. 9. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 13 of the case titled Office of the Chief Post Master General and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is as under: (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. 10. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the application seeking leave to file appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.