STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SMT. N.M. BHAGEERATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 1/13 has been filed by the appellant praying to condone the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the certified copy of the judgment was obtained on 18.3.2013 by the Spl.PP who conducted the case and furnished his opinion to the Addl. Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta who in turn sought opinion of the Chairman, Legal Cell, Karnataka Lokayukta. He opined that this is a fit case to prefer an appeal on 21.6.2013. It is stated, the Addl. Director General of Police through letter dated 3.7.2013 requested the Government to authorise the Spl.PP to file the appeal. The Government passed the order dated 26.7.2013 authorising the Spl.PP to prefer an appeal before this court. Thereafter, the Chairman, Legal Cell, Karnataka Lokayukta, issued authorisation dated 29.7.2013 to prefer an appeal. It was received by the Spl.PP on 31.7.2013. Thereafter, the Spl.PP perused the papers and sought for explanation for the delay. The deponent contacted the office of Spl.PP, Chamarajanagar. Office of Karnataka Lokayukta and Home Department and came to know that the Office of Chairman Legal Cell, Karnataka Lokayukta, was vacant from 4.9.2012 to 26.4.2013. It is stated, there was lot of pending work in the office of A.D.G.P and also Chairman's office. The opinion to file the appeal was sent to the Government during 1st week July 2013 and authorisation to Spl.PP was sent on 29.7.13. Thereafter, the appeal is filed. Therefore, there is delay in filing the appeal and it may be condoned.

(3.) The respondent has filed objections to the application contending that the delay in filing the appeal is 159 days and not 130 days as claimed by the appellant. The application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of misrepresentation also. It is stated, the certified copy was obtained on 18.2.2013 it sell The appellant has not explained the reason from 18.2.2013 to 18.3.2013. The explanation offered is unacceptable. The cause shown is not sufficient to condone the delay. Therefore, the application may be rejected.