STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VISHNUJI ALIAS BODIYO TALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has prayed for condonation of delay of 11 days in this matter. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal is in respect of the offences punishable under Secs. 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, where a lady has been made to commit suicide- obviously quite a serious offence requiring fresh look at the evidence in Appeal.

(2.) Now from the present application, it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 10-3-1995, and the certified copy of the same was applied for on 13-3-1995. It further appears that though the certified copy was ready for delivery on 18-3-1995, the same was not obtained till 23-3-1995. Thereafter, the said certified copy was forwarded alongwith proposal to file an acquittal appeal by the learned PP in charge of the case to the District Magistrate, Mehsana vide his letter dated 28-3-1995. The District Magistrate in his turn carry forwarded the same on 26-4-1995 to the Legal Department for further necessary action. Under the circumstances, obviously, the delay has taken place at the level of the District Magistrate. Such type of delays, these days, has become quite a routine, though we strongly disapprove it, that cannot be treated as a ground not to condone the delay. It further appears that at the level of the Legal Department and thereafter of the office of the learned PP, there was no inaction or delay in preferring the appeal It is unfortunate that in such a serious matter, the delay has taken place at the level of the District Magistrate, which is highly reprehensible. In that view of the matter, till they receive fresh circular in this regard from the Government as directed by us hereinafter all the District Magistrates of the State are directed to see that the proposal already forwarded by the learned PP pending before them is attended to at the earliest so as not to be victim of the delay allegations. In fact, we feel that once the learned PP is of the opinion of filing an acquittal appeal, (and for that purpose even in civil matter once the concerned government pleader is of the opinion to challenge any interim or final judgment and decree) the District Magistrate legally speaking, has no business whatsoever to override the said legal opinion. Accordingly, it is indeed not necessary at all that the acquittal and for that purpose even any proposal to challenge the impugned judgment and decree or any order be processed through the office of the District Magistrate. This procedure is redundant and requires to be scrapped at the earliest to save the public time. If the public administration is suffering from vices of inefficiency and red-tappism it is only because of such mechanical, routinal ground, procedure and approach and accordingly unless such idle, useless formalities are scrapped, important, public works were bound to suffer not attended to because lost in plies of files!! In this view of the matter, all the learned PPs of the State are hereby directed to forward their proposal to file an acquittal appeal straight to the Legal Department as ultimately it is the said department which is final decision taking authority. It may be clarified that it is altogether entirely a different thing if the copy of opinion/proposal is addressed to the Secretary, Legal Department, Gandhinagar and is forwarded to the District Magistrate for information only, as he being the overall head of the District. 2A. Turning to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judicial discretion warrants that this is one of the fittest case wherein it is indeed not necessary to mechanically issue the Rule and that the delay can certainly be condoned even without issuing the Rule. The view we are taking of not issuing the rule is duly supported by the direct decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Ramesh Laxmanbhai Chauhan, reported in 1994 (2) GLR p-1577. This view is also duly supported by the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh vs. Chief of Army Staff, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri.) 625. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :

(3.) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accordingly, condone the delay and direct the Office to place the matter on the admission board. This application stands disposed off accordingly.