State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs A.N.Seth And Ors

CONCR No.72/2011

The applicant/petitioner has filed the instant application seeking condonation of 2766 days delay in filing the Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 01.11.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu whereby the respondents have been acquitted.

It is stated in the application that while the acquittal appeal remained pending, this Court in another case titled State vs Suresh Kumar being acquittal appeal No.76/2007 held that CBI cannot maintain an acquittal appeal without the sanction of the State Government. Based on this law the Hon'ble Court permitted learned counsel for the applicant to withdraw criminal acquittal appeal no.9A/2004 with permission to file a fresh appeal after obtaining sanction from the State Government. It is further stated that the applicant after the appeal was withdrawn and permission was granted to file a fresh appeal after getting sanction from the State Government proceeded the matter at its own level and after it was found that a fresh appeal needed to be filed, and sanction whereof was required from the State Government, request to State Government was made which the State Government considered and proposed. It took some time for the State Government to process the matter and ultimately vide Government Order No.2258-LD(ACQ) of 2011 dated 05.08.2011 permission was accorded for filing an appeal. It is further stated that the appellant on receipt of the communication has immediately requested his learned counsel vide letter dated 16.08.2011 to prepare the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but because of the circumstances detailed above

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in support of her case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled "State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO and others", 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 and others vs Living Media India Ltd. and another".

From the perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that accused have been acquitted on 01.11.2003; sanction for filing appeal has been granted on 05.08.2011, after about eight years; and present petition has been filed on 02.09.2011, after one month; so total delay in filing the appeal is 2766 days from the date of judgment.

It is worthwhile to mention here that during pendency of this application, respondent Nos. 1,4,5,6 & 7 reported to have been died.

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 Statute 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, "Interests reipublicae up 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 to the State in filing appeal that does not mean that law of limitation in filing the appeal shall 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.

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 2766 days had occurred. Even if this Court wanted to show indulgence to the appellant, being a Government body, it finds it difficult to help the appellant as it has been guilty of gross negligence. 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.

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment titled State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO and others (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 2766 days (more than eight 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 05.08.2011, the State remained silent for one month 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.

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 respondent 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.

Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed and resultantly the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.