State Of Haryana v. Irfan
!
"
#
"
"$% &'
"%( ) & *
+ + -$$% &'
./ ++ 001 ( $00%11 $
2)+ .'
++%)0& % $ * 3!4 +
-
-
4
Present:
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana.
None for the respondent.
...
-
4
+ .1 1.
The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant State seeking condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. Leave to appeal has been sought for by the applicant against the judgment dated 12.01.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crimes Against Women and Children), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri5 whereby the respondent (herein) was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 2.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant State, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 251 days, has argued that after perusing the judgment dated 12.01.2018 passed in favour of the respondent, District Attorney, Yamuna Nagar had opined that it was a fit case to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused before this Court. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar requested the Advocate General, Haryana to file an appeal against acquittal. Thereafter, the office of the Advocate General, Haryana directed the
Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal accompanied by an affidavit. Subsequently, SI Rishi Kumar was deputed to take the file on 04.12.2018 to manage the filing of the instant appeal, and he was occupied with another investigation on that date leading to procedural delay of 251 days. Learned counsel for the applicant State has further argued that the delay was not due to any intentional negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical delay. It has been iterated by the learned counsel that every effort has been made to ensure that all procedural steps were followed diligently on account of which delay of 251 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 filing the application seeking leave to appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned.
3.
Pursuant to notice issued in the application for condonation of delay on 11.03.2019, respondent had caused appearance through learned counsel on 19.02.2020. Today, the case has been called out twice since morning. However, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. The same was the position on 09.08.2024. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it fit to proceed further with the case. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record with her assistance.
5.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Count passed in
titled as
decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:
!" #$%$
& !
&
& &
'
( )
*
(+ )
()
, ()
-
( ) ,
*
,,-
+
.
,,,,
(
)
* - ,/"
(+ )
* * 0
1 -
+ /, - '
/,!
2 ()
()
.
2
/,,
+
3
+
/,,,! -
*
.
,
* * * & 4
5
6 * &
.
&
6.
More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
!!" !"#$%& '( "
(('
#)* ( +
, -* has observed as under:
7% 4
-
*** *** *** *** *** ***
) 8
2 () 9
7.
Condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is sought for on the following relevant averments: "7! & #7#7:# " 8;
& - . < =
5 < >,?5 % #@ 7:#% .A@% ## :%,;-; -9
=
5 9
=
5
'
0 ;
& ' ' - - 8
5 B$@.9=.7:# 7777:#
;
=
5 A! ;
=
5
9
=
5
" 9 8 =
5 7A77:#
& #7#7:# B! "9 8 =
58
A $./?C 7A7:#
D
' -
&
! :.: D ' - ;=
5
5 #7 %@ @% A#77:# A#77:#
; - ,?C
+
B#77:# E
B#77:# ,?C
'
7 # F 8.
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 251 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. The instant application is bereft of any specific details/particulars which may reflect on part of the applicant State in pursuing its case. The primary reason given by the State is that there was procedural delay, which was purely circumstantial in nature, has occurred
on account of the fact that the investigation officer, who was assigned to file the instant application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal was busy in prosecuting another case despite the fact that the prescribed period for filing such an application has already been lapsed. Subsequently, the required procedure for filing the application seeking leave to appeal was carried out, resulting in a delay of 251 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 an application seeking leave to appeal 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. Indubitably, the State has to be accorded some latitude while considering the plea for condonation of delay filed by the State but the same cannot be stretched to an extent that the limitation Act is rendered otiose. The applicant State has failed 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 251 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal.
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.
presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay.
8.1 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 251 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal merits dismissal. Decision 9.
The application (CRM 983 2019) seeking condonation of delay of 251 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed as well accordingly. 10.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
+ + -
4 < C
"
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No