STATE Vs. NARAYANA SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 in C.C.No.17 of 1987 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and they have been acquired by the Trial Court from all the charges. Against the said acquittal, the State has preferred the above Criminal Appeal. In preferring the said Appeal, there is a delay of 443 days. An affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, is filed in support of the petition seeking condonotion of delay. Subsequently, an additional affidavit has also been filed.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State has submitted that the Judgment was passed by the Trial Court on 16.04.2008. An application for getting certified copy of the Judgment was made on 17.04.2008 itself, but as the copy was not furnished, again, another Application was made on 4.9.2008. THEn, again on 04.04.2009 another Application was made and thereafter the certified copy of the Judgment was obtained on 17.04.2009. THEreafter, the opinion of the Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, was obtained on 15.6.2009. THEn, the proposal along with the opinion of the Legal Advisor, was sent to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai and it was forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai on 13.07.2009 and they sent the proposal to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras on 06.08.2009. THEreafter, steps were taken and the Appeal was filed on 01.09.2009.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that the Trial Court had erroneously acquitted all the accused though P.Ws.1 to 3 are the approvers in this case and their evidence is also corroborated by documentary evidence. THE Trial Court merely acquitted the accused for the reason that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 were not corroborated by any oral evidence. THE learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has also relied on a decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (1) MWN (Cr.) 166 SC : 2005 AIR SCW 1748 in support of his contentions for condonation of delay.