CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for condoning delay of 244 days in preferring the criminal revision application was contested for respondents Nos.2 to 4, who are the accused persons in Special Case No.25 of 1993 in which chargesheet of the case was ordered to be returned for production before the competent Court by the order which is sought to be challenged in the main revision application. Such order of returning the chargesheet is stated to have come to be passed after about nine years of pendency of the case and upon death of one of the accused persons charged with the offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The factual background of delay is stated to be that the impugned order dated 31.12.2001 was received by the public prosecutor on 18.1.2002 and was placed in the file of the public prosecutor on 22.1.2002. The public prosecutor advised the investigating officer to file new chargesheet and marked the file to the concerned clerk. The clerk concerned did not take any action on the noting of the public prosecutor even as a letter dated 21.1.2002 from the Central Excise, Surat-I was received and replied on 5.2.2002. The file remained unattended upto 10.7.2002 for a period of five months and, in the meanwhile, the period of limitation of 90 days had expired. Upon periodical scrutiny of the cases, it came to the notice of the investigating officer that no action was taken and hence the file was placed before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Gandhinagar on 10.7.2002. It was then realised that the impugned order of the trial Court was required to be challenged and legal opinion therefor was sought from the senior public prosecutor. The senior public prosecutor gave his opinion on 22.7.2002 but, since certified copy of the order was not even applied for, it was obtained on 23.8.2002. The opinion of the learned counsel for C.B.I. was sought and, according to his opinion, revision application before this Court was preferred since the question involved was very important and was likely also to affect other cases. It is stated that some time was lost in sending copies of file to higher authorities for their opinion and the Joint Director of C.B.I., West Zone, Mumbai and the Director of Prosecution, New Delhi had to confirm the decision to file revision application. During the course of these dealings, the opinion to file revision had to pass through the office of the D.I.G., C.B.I., Jaipur who, in turn, directed the petitioner-Superintendent of Police to file application. Ultimately, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. filed revision application on 29.11.2002. The procedure briefly narrated as above is stated to be normal time consuming process and sufficient cause for the delay. It is also stated that an enquiry is initiated against the clerk concerned with whom the file had remained unattended at the initial stage for an inordinately long period.

(3.) An affidavit-in-reply for the contesting respondents is filed to state that apparently learned special public prosecutor in charge of the case had not applied for certificate copy of the impugned order and advised the investigating officer to file a new chargesheet against the accused persons in the appropriate Court which clearly indicated that the higher authorities took a different view at a very late stage when the period of limitation had since long expired. It is also averred that the fact that the file remained unattended upto 10.7.2002, for a period of five months, clearly indicated gross negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioner which disentitled it to any discretionary relief. It is also pointed out that even after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 23.8.2002, the petitioner has filed the revision application on 29.11.2002 after three months without any cogent, convincing or reasonable excuse. It is alleged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed relevant material and facts by keeping silence about important and relevant dates and, in absence of such data, condoning the delay would amount to condoning negligence. Thus, in short, sufficient cause to justify the delay was not made out according to the respondents.