STATE Vs. RAJINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 9.11.1998, acquitting the respondents, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was filed only on 29.4.2003. Certain objections were raised and it was refiled only on 22.7.2003.

(2.) The State has filed Crl.M.No.62/2003 for condonation of delay and another Crl.M.No.84/2003 has been filed for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after removal of objections. Averments made in the application dated 8.8.2003, which is the subsequent application filed is that there was a delay of 436 days in initial filing and 3 years and 22 days in refiling the appeal. Para 11 of the Crl.M.No.84/2003 is in the following terms:- 11. That there is a delay of 436 days in initial filing and 3 years and 22 days in refiling the appeal, however, it is respectfully reiterated that the same is neither intentional nor deliberate. The initial delay in filing is attributed to the file processing for filing an appeal between the Addl. P.P. And the Director of Prosecution. Thereafter it was on account of processing of the case by the Secretary (Law & Judl.) and the approval of the Competent Authority. Further delay is due to movement of the file from the office of Director (Prosecution) to the SDM, Najafgarh and then in the office of the Standing Counsel. Lastly it is contended that after filing of the appeal and objections being raised, the file got mixed up with other files of the Standing Counsel due to paucity of space, which resulted in these enormous delays. Reliance is sought to be placed on several decisions to the effect that technicalities of law should not prevent the Court from substantial justice being done and that a liberal approach ought to be adopted.

(3.) We are not persuaded to accept that the appellants have been able to offer a tenable explanation or show sufficient cause for condonation of this enormous and inordinate delay. In fact if for the stated reasons in every case a delay of this magnitude is to be condoned, it would amount to negation of the period of limitation prescribed. Leaving that apart, we also heard the learned counsel on merits of the appeal to satisfy ourselves that there should not be any substantial miscarriage of justice in case leave to appeal is declined.