STATE OF U P Vs. VIJAY PRAKASH BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This Court is regularly observing that several Special Appeals are being placed in the list as 'special Appeal Defective'. On enquiry we have come to know that whenever Special Appeals are filed with application for condonation of delay, such appeals are normally being treated as 'special Appeal Defective' in the list. Upon going through the records of the individual cases, we find that most of such appeals are filed by the State in the routine manner on some pretext or other. This gives us the impression whether latitude is to be shown to the appellant as because it is a State as a matter of course without verifying the sufficiency of the cause applicable to them or we shall shut our eyes, as because State is not similarly placed with an individual. Against this background we have to consider the individual applications.

(2.) IN further, the present policy of the Government, either Union or the State is that there should be sufficient curtailment of red-tapism to go ahead. The procedures are getting liberalized in respect of all activities in connection with public interest. If it is so, why the same principle will not be adopted in case of Court proceedings when pendency of litigations are piling up regularly, is unknown to the Court. Court is anxious about the circumstances. Defective appeals are also appeals so far as number of pendency is concerned.

(3.) THEREFORE, the prayer of condonation of delay on the part of the State will have to be based on genuine ground not as a matter of course, nor at the sweet will of the State taking the advantage of the Court's generosity. Latitude is to be given when Court will come to the conclusion on the factual background that in such case a latitude is required to be given. From the factual background of the case before the Supreme Court, it appears that the prosecution was eager to test the order of acquittal by the Appellate Court. Another special fact has been noticed by the Supreme Court that the file was missing but was surprisingly available when the prosecution thought to reconstruct it. THEREFORE, the Court was guided by such factor.