STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. BANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay of 1266 days in filing of the leave to appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated

(2.) 06.2010 and 05.06.2010, respectively. The FIR in question was registered in the year 2005 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that the delay in the present case was occasioned due to change in nominated counsel and as the original leave to appeal paper book was misplaced. The learned counsel for the Applicant/State has relied upon State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, JT 2008 (10) SC 179 and submits that the delay should be condoned in the present matter. 2. As per the averments made in the application, certified copy of the impugned judgment/order was obtained on 16.07.2010 and was marked to the standing counsel in January, 2011. The file was then misplaced by the nominated counsel and could be traced by him only in May, 2011. Thereupon, petition was drafted on 23.05.2011 and was received back on 02.06.2011 and on the same day the leave to appeal petition was filed. Objections were raised and the application for leave to appeal was returned. In the meanwhile, there was a change in the nominated counsel/Additional Public Prosecutor and only on 05.02.2014 the appeal was remarked and the same was refilled on 07.02.2014.

(3.) RELIANCE placed by the learned counsel for the applicant/State on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Jaan (supra) does not help. The expression 'sufficient cause' it has been observed and held, has to be given a liberal construction and the State cannot be put on the same footing as a private individual. In the case of Ahmed Jaan (supra), it is noticeable Sections 121, 121 -A, 122, 124 -A and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code had been invoked and keeping in view the facts of the said case the Supreme Court had condoned the delay. Factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental condition should be taken into cognizance and pragmatic justice -oriented approach should be adopted. Facts of each case have to be examined to decide whether or not to condone delay and sufficient cause is made out. In the said decision, the government was asked to constitute the legal cells to examine the cases and ensure that the appeals or appellate proceedings were initiated and filed with promptitude and were pursued by the officer responsible. Further, action should be taken where there have been individual lapses and personal responsibility should be fixed.