STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. COLLECTOR SUJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises the question of the privilege raised by the Government of India in respect of certain documents called for from its Home Department in a criminal proceeding pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (East), U. P. Lucknow.

(2.) The respondents were prosecuted in the said Court, after obtaining the sanction of the Central Government under S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence under Section 6 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (Act 2 of 1947). An objection was taken before the said court on behalf of the respondents that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind properly when sanction for the prosecution was granted. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that on a representation made by one of the accused, Col. Sujan Singh, for reconsideration of the order of his prosecution, the Deputy Secretary in the Home Department reconsidered the matter and made nothings on his application to the effect that the sanction accorded earlier for his prosecution was given on insufficient data. He filed a petition before the Special Judge to summon the concerned record of the Home Department on the ground that the said record would substantiate his assertion that the concerned officer did not apply his mind earlier in according sanction for his prosecution. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, claimed privilege on the ground that the production of the record containing the said notings of the Deputy Secretary would not be in the interests of the State. The Special Judge in the first instance and the High Court in revision rejected the claim of privilege raised by the Union Government. The State of U. P. has preferred the present appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court.

(3.) The respondents filed Criminal Petition No. 149 of 1964 for condonation of delay in filing appearance and the statement of case. The facts relevant to this application are briefly as follows. Respondents 1 and 2 received the notice granting special leave by this Court an January 16, 1964 . After the receipt of the notice they contacted their local advocate at Lucknow and, on his advice, the 1st respondent, along with his local advocate, came to Delhi on January 28, 1964 'and made necessary arrangements with Messrs. J .B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates. On January 16, 1964 'respondents 1 and 2 received a notice from the High Court intimating them that the records of the case had been despatched to the S. C. . On February 11, 1964 ' they filed their appearance and on February 18, 1964, their Statement of case. If January 16, 1964, was the date of service on them, there would not be any delay in making their appearance or filing their statement of case. But the notice of the despatch of the records was served on the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on November 4, 1963. Under Ch. V. R. 4 (1) (c), read with R. 2, of the Rules of the High Court, Allahabad, where a party is represented by an advocate, a service of notice of despatch of record on such advocate is deemed to be sufficient service. As the present appeal arises out of an interlocutory order it may be said that the advocate representing the respondents in the High Court still continues to represent them. We assume for the purpose of this case that the rule is valid and the notice was duly served on the advocate. If that be so, the respondents should have filed their appearance and lodged their statement of case within a month from the said date. But they filed their appearance on February 11, 1964 'which is clearly beyond time. It will be seen from the said facts that the respondents had filed their appearance within one month from the date of service of notice on them but beyond time from the date the notice was served on their advocate. The said delay is not in the presentation of any appeal but only in following the procedural steps for making the case ready for disposal. We are satisfied by perusing the record that the delay was not due to negligence on the part of the respondents. It is not suggested that the appellant is in any way prejudiced by this delay. In the circumstances, we think that this is a fit case for excusing the delay. We excuse the delay in filing respondent's appearance and also in lodging the Statement of case.