STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HAVABHAI MOHANBHAI RABARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state of Gujarat by this Criminal Misc. Application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has moved this Court praying for condoning the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) On going through the delay condonation application, it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 1.10.1993 and the learned APP in charge of the case without wasting any further time applied for the certified copy of the same on the very same day, i.e. on 1.10.1993. This per se speaks firstly about the efficiency and sense of the responsibility of learned PP and secondly about the fact that the State was keen to challenge the acquittal order right from the moment it was passed by filing appeal. This copy was ready for delivery on 6.10.1993 and was obtained immediately on next day ie., on 7.10.1993. Thereafter, it also further appears that the learned APP routinely forwarded his proposal for filing appeal along with the certified copy of impugned judgment and order of acquittal to the District Magistrate. Mehsana by his letter dated 15.10.1993. Thereafter, after about three-and-a-half months the District Magistrate, by his letter dated 8.2.1994, pushed ahead this proposal to the Deputy Secretary, Legal Department, Gandhinagar !! This was received by the Registry of Legal Department on 11.2.1994 and placed before the concerned branch on 14.2.1994 which in turn placed the same before the concerned Deputy Secretary on 15.2.1994 who in his turn further passed on the said proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department, for taking appropriate decision. The Secretary, Legal Department took the decision to file acquittal appeal in the High Court on the same day, i.e. 19.2.1994. Accordingly, on 19.2.1994 itself G.R. to file an acquittal appeal was issued to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court which was received by the said officer on 19.2.1994 after office hours. 20.2.1994 being Sunday, the appeal was ultimately filed in this Court on 21.2.1994. ie. to say in all beyond time by 47 days. In support of this delay condonation application, Mr. G.P. Rathod, Assistant, Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar; Mr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, the then District Magistrate, Mehsana and Mr. A.K. Sharma, at present Collector and District Magistrate, Mehsana, have filed their affidavits explaining away the facts and circumstances under which the delay in question came to take place at their respective levels.

(3.) Perused the affidavit filed by Shri Rajivkuamr Gupta. Undoubtedly, the major part of delay in filing appeal has taken place in his office. In this regard his explanation in substance is to the effect that as a Collector and the District Magistrate, he has to perform very many important duties such as (1) maintenance of the law & order ; (2) Revenue functions ; (3) Development functions; (4) Co-ordination with various Departments oi State Government; (5) Magisterial quasi judicial functions ; (6) Protocol functions; (7) Management of natural calamity; (8) Resource mobilization under various schemes of the Government Act, and (9) such other important duties that may from time to time arise and assigned, and it is only because of these hard pressing duties and consequent paucity ol time that despite his best intentions, he could not manage to attend the acquittal proposa in question in time to be cleared through for its onward transmission to the lega department for appropriate decision.