Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1318 (PNJ)

U. T. Chandigarh v. Pankaj

2024-11-11

SUMEET GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sumeet Goel, J. CRM-4370-2019 1. The present application has been filed on the behalf of the applicant-State seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugned the judgement of acquittal dated 21.03.2018 passed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chandigarh, whereby the respondent (herein) (juvenile at the time of the alleged incident) was acquitted of the charges (notice of accusation) framed against him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 173 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as by the time the certified copy of the impugned judgement dated 21.03.2018, alongwith other relevant case documents was received at the office of the undersigned Public Prosecutor, the statutory period for filling the instant revision petition on behalf of the State had already expired. According to the learned counsel, after the assignment of the instant case, despite multiple reminders issued by the office of the undersigned, the necessary documents, including witness statements and evidence, were eventually gathered by the concerned Police official and handed over to the Additional Public Prosecutor. Subsequently the memorandum of revision was drafted to initiate the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-State has further argued that delay was not due to any intentional negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical delay. It has been iterated by the learned counsel that effort has been made to ensure that all procedural steps were followed diligently on account of which delay of 173 days has caused and the same was purely circumstantial. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filling the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-State and have perused the paper-book. 4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgement of this Court passed in CRR (F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “8. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-State and have perused the paper-book. 4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgement of this Court passed in CRR (F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:- “8. As a sequel to above-said discussion the following principles of law emerge: I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice . The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned. II. A Court to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay has occurred on account of circumstances beyond reasonable control of such applicant. III. It is not the length of delay (sought to be condoned) but explanation thereof which is relevant for consideration Court. IV. Law of limitation does not require an applicant (seeking condonation of delay) to furnish an exhaustive explanation on ‘day to day basis’ for such delay. A Court while dealing with a plea for condonation of delay need not undertake such a pedantic approach. V. In appropriate cases, a Court may consider imposing costs while granting an application for condonation of delay. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein. VI. The factum; of non-applicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position (s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. However, the quantification of costs so imposed, must reflect the same being commensurate to the lis in issue as also attending circumstances therein. VI. The factum; of non-applicant(s) or even strangers having altered their position (s) relying upon the applicant not having filed an appeal/revision etc. within stipulated time and resultant effects there of; will indubitably be a pertinent factor for consideration of a plea for condonation of delay. VII. A plea for condonation of delay by the State as also its instrumentalities has to be accorded a more liberal approach since the machinery involved in their working is impersonal in nature & hidden factors working therein cannot be given a complete amiss. VIII. The discretion of Court, while considering a plea for condonation of delay, will be exercised in view of peculiar facts/circumstances of an individual case. It is neither prudent not feasible to fix any exhaustive guidelines for the exercising such judicial discretion. On the contrary, it would be perilous to lay down such general criteria for governing such discretion. Needless to emphasize that exercise of such judicial direction/power ought to be within the four corners of well settled principles of justice, good conscience and fair play.” 5. More recently in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 286 , has observed as under: “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law as aforesaid and the laid down by this Court, it is evident that: Xxx xxx xxx xxx vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and viii)”Delay condonation application to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provisions” 6. Condonation of delay of 173 days in filling the accompanying revision petition is sought for on the following relevant averment: “2. That the legal Remembrancer-cum-Director Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, has directed the Public Prosecutor to present the instant Revision before this Hon’ble Court against the judgement of acquittal dated 21.03.2018 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Chandigarh, vide Memo. No. JA-LD-(CRL/2018/139)-2018/14448 dated 05.11.2018, the (certified) papers of which were received on 29.11.2018, after the period for filling instant Revision had already expired. No. JA-LD-(CRL/2018/139)-2018/14448 dated 05.11.2018, the (certified) papers of which were received on 29.11.2018, after the period for filling instant Revision had already expired. As submitted, the aforesaid instructions by the LR/DP were received after the period prescribed for limitation for filling the Present Revision had expired. 3. That it is submitted that by the time certified copy of the impugned judgement dated 21.03.2018 and other related case papers were received in the office of the undersigned Additional Public Prosecutor, the period prescribed for limitation for filing present Revision by the State had already expired. Subsequent to entrustment of the present case, and reminders from the office of the undersigned Counsel, the relevant papers including statements and evidence in the present case were collected by the concerned police official and handed over to Additional Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the Memorandum of Revision was prepared for filing the present Revision. In the entire process, as explained above a, a delay of 173 days has occurred in the filing of the present Revision.” 7. A perusal of the above-said averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-State (herein) to condone the delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The instant application is bereft of any specific details/particulars which may reflect bona fide on the part of the applicant-State in pursuing its case. The primary reason given is that the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Director of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, instructed the Public Prosecutor to file the instant revision petition against the impugned judgement of acquittal, even though the prescribed period for filing such a petition has already lapsed. Subsequently, the required procedure for filing the revision petition was carried out, resulting in a delay of 173 days which is beyond the limitation period. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fact was very well known to the authorities that the period for limitation to file a revision petition is only 90 days. Having perused the purported justification, this Court is of the considered view that very mechanical reason have been given for the same, which suggest that, as if, to seek condonation of delay is a matter of right, regardless of the reasons qua the same. Having perused the purported justification, this Court is of the considered view that very mechanical reason have been given for the same, which suggest that, as if, to seek condonation of delay is a matter of right, regardless of the reasons qua the same. Indubitably, the State has to be accorded some latitude while considering the plea condonation of the delay filed by the State but the same cannot be stretched to an extent the limitation Act is rendered otiose. The applicant-State has filed to provide any concrete explanation or document to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone the significant delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable. Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for condonation. The application-State has neither shown continuous interest in the case nor presented my any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay. 7.1 The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition merits dismissal. Decision 8. The application (CRM-4370-2019) seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in filling the accompanying revision petition is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the main revision petition stands dismissed as well accordingly. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.