Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 318 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Sunil

2022-03-07

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard learned A.G.A. on the delay condonation application. 2. The limitation for filing the appeal was up to 25-04-2018 and on 08-01-2020 the Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 623 days with one defect. The defect was removed and appeal was presented on 09-01-2020. Therefore, there was delay of 623+1 = 624 days in presenting the appeal. 3. By drawing attention to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this application it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the delay is purely procedural in nature and is liable to be condoned. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that an application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment dated 25-11-2017 was filed on 18-12-2017 and a certified copy of the judgment was received on 16-02-2018. Thereafter, on 12-03-2018 a proposal was sent by the District Government Counsel to the District Magistrate for filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and after considering the material available before the District Magistrate, he sent the proposal for filing the Government Appeal on 17-03-2018. On 16-12-2018, the Government passed the G.O. for filing the appeal. It is further stated in the affidavit that since the limitation for filing of the appeal had also expired, a communication was sent to the District Magistrate on 03-01-2019 and reminders were sent on 21-06-2019 and 22.10.2019 for sending an officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer, so that an affidavit in support of the delay condonation application may be prepared and filed along with the appeal without any further delay and thereafter vide letter dated 18.11.2019 the District Magistrate has deputed an officer to contact the office of the Government Advocate for filing of the affidavit along with application for condonation of delay. 5. Before proceeding further it would be appropritae to take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on this aspect. 6. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court summerised the law regarding condonation of delay in the following words: - “15. 5. Before proceeding further it would be appropritae to take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on this aspect. 6. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court summerised the law regarding condonation of delay in the following words: - “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.” 7. Again, in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “29. 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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 8. Same view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case of State of M.P. Vs. Chaitram Maywade (2020) 10 SCC 654 while condoning delay of 588 days and the Delay Condonation Application was rejected. In para 4 and 5 it was observed as under:- “4. We have also ex-pressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only “certificate cases” to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. In para 4 and 5 it was observed as under:- “4. We have also ex-pressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only “certificate cases” to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. We have also recorded that irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing. 5. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial time involved, we impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs.35,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this court within the said period of time. We have put to Deputy Advocate General to caution that for any successive matters of this kind the costs will keep going on.” 9. In State of U.P. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authorities at Allahabad and another 2021(8) ADJ 486, one of us has considered the entire law where plea of procedural delay has been taken to condone the laches/delay. 10. In the light of the aforesaid law we proceed to consider this application. 11. We find that admittedly the certified copy was received on 16-02-2018 and it took about two years to process and ultimately the appeal was filed on 08-01-2020. There is absolutely no explanation for the period between 03-01-2019, on which date a communication was sent to the District Magistrate to appoint an Officer for preparing the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and 18-11-2019, the date on which the District Magistrate deputed an Officer for the said purpose. The delay has apparently been caused due to red tapism in the office of the District Magistrate and keeping in view the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above noted cases, it cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for the delay. 12. The delay has apparently been caused due to red tapism in the office of the District Magistrate and keeping in view the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above noted cases, it cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for the delay. 12. In view of the fact that prosecution was lodged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, we thought it proper to have a glance over the impugned judgment as allegations, if proved, would be considered to be against society. In cross it was admitted by PW-1 and 2 that death had taken place after seven years of marriage. It is a case where only a skelteon was found and it was not known whether it was of a male or of a female and even D.N.A. was not conducted to ascertain whether it was of the deceased Kaushlaya. It is virutally a case of no evidence. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the legal position, we do not find any good ground to condone such huge delay. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is liable to be rejected. 14. The delay condonation application is accordingly rejected. Order on Application Seeking Leave to File Appeal Since the application seeking condonation of delay to file leave to appeal is dismissed, the application seeking leave to file appeal is accordingly rejected. Order on the Appeal Since the application seeking leave to file an appeal is rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed.