DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. ASHOK SOLOMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The impugned Judgment of acquittal was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.11.1992. Application for obtaining certified copy was filed on 5.2.1993. The certified copy was ready on 8.4.1993. According to this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, the file for the purpose of filing appeal was received in the office of the Standing Counsel on 20.4.1993 and thereafter the file mixed up with some decided file and was traced on 30.7.1993. It has been pleaded in the application that delay in filing the appeal is not intentional, but due to administrative procedure. The limitation for filing appeal expired on 29.4.1993. The appeal was, however, filed on 12.8.1993. It was returned many times for complying with the office objections and ultimately the office objections were complied with and the appeal was presented on 20.9.1993. Though the facts about the file having been misplaced in the office of the Standing Counsel have not been explained in detail and only a vague and general statement has been made to that effect in the application, as also in the additional affidavit, for the present purposes we will assume in favour of the applicant that the file got mixed up as pleaded in the application and it was traced on 30.7.1993. It seems, however, clear that the appeal as also the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay were prepared and were ready on 31.7.1993. In that view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the applicant to explain, howsoever liberal the law of limitation maybe,astohowthe delay occurred from 31.7.1993 till filing of the appeal on 12.8.1993. Nothing has been stated either in the application or in the additional affidavit in that regard. It is thus evident that it is not a case where on account of some bona fide error delay has occurred. The applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause.

(2.) . It may also be noticed that in the additional affidavit filed by the applicant an attempt has been made to plead that the existing practice of allowing period of 90 days for the purpose of filing appeal against acquittal is not legal, and that the law of limitation prescribes six months period for filing the appeal. It has, however, not been pleaded that the applicant was under any bona tide error that the period of limitation is six months. For the purpose of filing appeal the period of limitation is 90 days, as has already been settled at rest long back by the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramdeen and Others (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1328).

(3.) . We find no substance in the application. It is accordingly dismissed.