STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABULAL CHUNILAL DOLARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant State of Gujarat has preferred this application seeking condonation of delay of 1457 days in filing the appeal, challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned JMFC, Veraval dated 30/3/2000 in Criminal Case No. 1240 of 1994, thereby the accused was acquitted of the charge of committing offence under Section 7 (1)read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'pfa Act' ).

(2.) THE long delay occurred in filing the appeal is sought to be explained by supporting affldavit affirmed by one Shri. Ravindra Mukundray amraotkar, Assistant Commissioner, Foods and Drugs Control, administration, Junagadh, affirmed on 16/1/2006. It is mentioned that the state of Gujarat,in Legal Department has issued a circular dated 20/12/ 2000 as to the vigilance and care to be practiced so as to avold the delay in preferring appeals. It is mentioned that on the date of hearing Asstt. Public prosecutor remained present to defend the case on behalf of the department. The judgment was pronounced on 30/3/2000. However, concerned Asstt. Public Prosecutor dld not inform the office of the deponent either in writing or through any other communication. The office of the deponent was unaware about pronouncement of the judgment. The office of the deponent deputed Class-Ill officer Shri. H. L. Makwana for applying for certified copy. It is further stated in the affldavit that Shri. B. N. Chaudhary, Food inspector was transferred and he was incharge of Veraval Taluka during period from 22/2/2000 to 27/6/2001. Thereafter he was transferred to baroda. Pursuant to transfer of Shri. B. N. Chaudhary, the work of Veraval taluka was being looked after by Shri. M. G. Shaikh during period between 28/6/2001 to 30/9/2003. On 1/10/2003 the charge of Veraval was taken over by Shri. H. L. Makwana and on inquiry it was found that record from the court was traced. Shri. Makwana applied for certified copy of the judgment on 19/3/2004, copy was made ready on 29/3/2004 and copy was delivered on 1/04/2004. On the very same day copy was submitted in the office of the deponent. The subsequent part for delay caused is explained in the application itself.

(3.) THE delay largely seems to have occurred due to lack of knowledge on the part of concerned office about pronouncement of judgment and no malafide intention could be attributed to any one. The fact remains that the required vigilance and care was lacking. However, for sald lack of vigilance and care on the part of the concerned, the cause of justice need not to suffer. For this reason only, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.