State thru. C.B.I. vs R.P. Tiwari

Hima Kohli, J.—The present application is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 180 days in preferring the accompanying criminal leave to appeal petition in respect of a judgment of acquittal dated 04.04.2006 passed by the Special Judge, New Delhi.

A perusal of the file shows that initially, the petitioner had filed a four paragraphs application to explain the delay of 180 days, which did not satisfy the Court. As a result, vide order dated 06.02.2009, the petitioner was directed to file an additional affidavit giving details in support of the averments made in para 3 of the application.

An additional affidavit dated 23.06.2009 has been filed by the petitioner with a copy to the other side. Reply thereto has also been filed by the counsel for the respondent. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the petitioner on 05.04.2006. Copy thereof was obtained on 15.04.2006 and submitted to the Sr.PP for his comments on 26.04.2006 whereafter, the file was submitted to the DIG, CBI on 20.05.2006. The period w.e.f. 20.05.2006 till 18.07.2006 has been explained in the affidavit by detailing the manner, in which the file moved from one desk to the other, within the Department.

The main grievance of the counsel for the respondent is that there is no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay for the period of 118 days, referred to in para 14 of the additional affidavit. In para 14, it is stated that the CBI received a reply regarding approval by the Department of Legal Affairs on 08.11.2006. She submits that the delay of 118 days is inordinate and remains unexplained, particularly when in the present case, the petitioner was conscious of the fact that the limitation for preferring the appeal was to expire on 13.07.2006.

Counsel for the respondent is justified in stating that the Department of Legal Affairs adopted a lackadaisical approach in processing the case file. The Court is inclined to agree with her submission that when the matter pertains to filing of an appeal in Court within the prescribed period of limitation, then the Department of Legal Affairs, which is well versed with the legal implications, is expected to be more vigilant and responsible in processing the file. Instead, a perusal of the additional affidavit shows that while within the Department, the file was not detained by any officer for an unreasonably long time, but it is the Department of Legal Affairs alone, at whose door, lies the delay of 118 days.

At the same time, it has been consistently held in a number of judicial pronouncements that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and where there are no allegations of gross negligence, absence of bonafides, or intentional delay/inaction attributable to a party, generally, delays in preferring appeals, particularly when they are filed by the Government, are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, as also in public interest.(Refer: G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore,

As also observed by this Court in Union of India v. Mahender Singh and Ors. reported as 2010 (168) DLT 731 that, "the yardstick for examining �just and sufficient cause� for the purposes of considering an application for condonation of delay, where it relates to a Government department as against private citizen, is therefore a little different for the reason that the considerations which weigh with the Court include the fact that the decision making process in a Government department takes much longer as it is taken collectively and at an institutional level. Hence, the extent of latitude granted to the Government is wider."

In the present case, no doubt, the petitioner ought to have taken a prompt and timely decision to file the appeal and the matter ought to have been pursued by the concerned officers with due care, diligence and reasonable despatch, but having regard to the averments contained in the additional affidavit and in view of the fact that at the end of the day, this is an appeal preferred by the State against an acquittal order, which ought to be decided on merits, instead of getting entangled in legal technicalities, the present application is allowed. At the same time, directions are issued to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law to be more cautious in future and ensure that matters where limitations are involved, are not processed in such a casual manner, as is noticed in the present case, and a system is put into place to ensure that there is a fixed time frame within the hierarchy, for examining and returning the files to the concerned department, where court cases are concerned, keeping in mind the limitation prescribed under the Statute.

The application is allowed. The delay of 180 days in preferring the accompanying petition is condoned.

A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the petitioner to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, for perusal and compliance.