STATE Vs. HARDAWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. No. 242/2004 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act).

(2.) PETITIONER has sought condonation of delay in filing and refilling the present appeal alleging that the respondent was acquitted vide order dated 2.8.2000 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate; the Senior P.P. (PFA) prepared the grounds of acquittal on 13.9.2000 and forwarded the file to Deputy Legal Advisor (PFA) who opined it a fit case for filing the appeal and forwarded the file to the Director (PFA) on 1.2.2001; Director (PFA) forwarded the file to the Secretary (Law and Judicial) for advise through Secretary (Health) on 28.3.2001; Secretary granted permission to file the appeal on 3.5.2001; file was received back by the Standing counsel (Criminal) office on 28.6.2001; the appeal was filed on 31.8.2001; after filing of the appeal certain objections were raised by the Registry of this Court; the file was misplaced and it could be traced out only in the last week of June, 2003; the objections were removed and the appeal was filed. There is a delay of 206 days in filing and 1 year 10 months and 72 days in refilling the appeal, which was neither intentional nor deliberate.

(3.) MR . O.P. Saxena, learned APP for the State has submitted that because of procedural delays on behalf of the department, the appeal could not be filed in time and the technicalities of law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and undoing illegalities perpetuated in the process. In appeals filed by the State, because of various formalities to be completed, the delay in preparing and filing the appeal is unavoidable and, therefore, the court should adopt liberal approach in considering this application and condone the delay in filing and refilling of the appeal. He has referred to: