STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. RAJESH @ GAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.No.17056/2016: Crl.L.P.No. 581/2016 along with Crl.M.A.No.17056/2016 seeking condonation of 150 days delay in seeking leave to appeal was filed by the State on 21.10.2016. The State has sought to submit that in view of procedural delay the criminal leave petition seeking to assail the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 04.02.2016 of the learned ASJ (FTC) North West, District Rohini in FIR No. 1350/2015, P.S. Mangolpuri could not be filed in time. It was, inter alia, submitted through the Crl.M.A.No. 17056/2016 that the decision to file the criminal leave petition seeking to assail the impugned judgment and impugned order on sentence has to pass through several stages of the Department of Prosecution, i.e. through the Addl. P.P., Sr. P.P., Chief Prosecutor, Private Secretary Law and Justice, Director of Prosecution, GNCTD and Standing Counsel (Criminal) High Court of Delhi and then requires the approval of the concerned DCP.

(2.) Reliance was also placed on behalf of the State on the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107 and the State of Nagaland vs. Lipok 2005(3) SCC 752 to contend that refusal to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause justice being defeated and that if the delay is condoned, the maximum that could take place is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. It was also further submitted on behalf of the State whilst placing reliance on the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay.

(3.) Taking into account the factum that through Crl.L.P.581/2016, the State at the outset in terms of Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) merely seeks leave to appeal, which appeal cannot be entertained except with the leave of this Court in terms of Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., and the verdicts of the Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the State, delay in the institution of Crl.L.P. No.581/2016 is thus condoned in the interest of justice, so that the prayer the made by the State seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order on sentence can be considered on the merits of the case rather than on technicalities. Crl.M.A.17056/2016 is thus allowed.