The State v. Shri A.Josemon

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRA(SB)/1/2023 CRAN/1/2023 CRAN/2/2023 The State Vs.

Shri A. Josemon Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the petitioner Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent February 15, 2023 [SR] Item No.69 Heard Mr. Sumit Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

The appeal has been filed against an order of the acquittal dated 26.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (POC Act), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Special Case No. 07 of 2014. The respondent/opposite party was charged under section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under section 13(2) of the said Act.

The trial court, on consideration of the facts on record (both oral and documentary) came to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge and accordingly acquitted the respondent from the charge.

Against such order of acquittal, the State preferred CRA/14/2019 along with a petition for grant of leave vide CRM(Spl)/1/2021.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 refused to grant leave on merit as well as on the ground that necessary sanction as contemplated under section 378(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C has not been obtained from the competent authority to prefer the appeal. After the setback, the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 08.12.2022 accorded sanction for filing an appeal. From the order dated 21.03.2022 it is clear that after the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, necessary steps with quite alertness were taken by the authority concerned to facilitate filing of appeal, but they however did not think it proper to take sanction of the competent authority under section 378(1)(b) Cr.P.C at that time.

Almost nine months after the setback, in the form of refusal of leave to file appeal, sanction order having been accorded, the present appeal has been filed along with a petition for condonation of delay and fresh application for leave to file appeal.

When the order dated 21.03.2022 is staring at my face and when from the aforesaid order at page 5, it is clear that diligent steps were taken by the appropriate authority at the relevant time to file appeal against the order of acquittal, the present order of sanction by the competent authority, after refusal of leave is in fact a fastidious step to cover up the lacuna in the process. The Court is not there to satisfy the whims and caprices of the bureaucrats or any competent authority, may be administrative or political, who act ad-

libitum without being conscious or cognizant of the facts regarding effect of procedural lapses. When leave has already been refused once I do not think it proper and justified for the State to file appeal again with a petition for condonation of delay and a petition for grant of leave.

In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, there is no merit either in the petition for condonation of delay or the petition for grant of leave.

Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay being CRAN/1/2023 and petition for grant of leave being CRAN/2/2023 are hereby dismissed.

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal being CRA(SB)/1/2023 is also not taken on record and accordingly dismissed.

( Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)