STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SULEMAN SULTAN ALI SULEMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Absolutely no justifiable ground has been advanced by the State Government for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in favour of the present respondent. I have perused the judgement of the learned Magistrate and, in the first place, I was not at all satisfied that the judgement, which was based on pure appreciation of evidence on record, called for any interference by this Court in the appeal against acquittal. But that apart, I find that the appeal has been filed by the State after a delay of about 54 days in filing the appeal. A chain of reasons is sought to be given for satisfying this Court that the delay was something which could not be avoided. Buteach of the statements gives rise to the inference that each of the Officers concerned of the Government has been looking at the question of delay in an extremely airy and casual manner.

(2.) The impugned judgment was delivered on 12.11. 1979. The Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution has given no recommendation to the Government to file the appeal. The Government woke up to the question as to whether as appeal should be filed at all only by virtue of the letter dated 10.12.1979 written by the so-called Complainant, that is to say, the person who had received the injuries in the accident allegedly caused by virtue of the negligence of the respondent driver this letter dated 10.12.1979 was sent by the Government to the Commissioner of Police in order to obtain the certified copy of the judgment for finding out the feasibility of the appeal; but the certified copy was applied for by the Officer to the Commissioners Office as late as on 201.1980. The copy was ready on 1.2.1980; but the application for condonation of, delay itself states that the Government did not receive the certified copy for a long time thereafter. Ultimately the Government passed a resolution on 21.2.1980 taking decision to file the appeal against the order of acquittal.

(3.) But now the Public Prosecutor's Office started the entire rigma-role once again. The Office of the Public Prosecutor took its own time for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment from the Office of the Commissioner of Police. Contention is that during all this time, the Public Prosecutors Office could not have processed and prepared the appeal for being filed.