STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. AVUNOORI SRIKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three miscellaneous petitions are filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking condonation of inordinate delay in representing criminal appeals against the acquittal, can be disposed of by this common order. All the petitions are accompanied by the affidavit of the Manager in Public Prosecutor's office and are similar giving identical reasons justifying the delay.

(2.) We have heard learned Public Prosecutor. In the affidavit filed by Manager of Public Prosecutor's office, it is stated that one Sri Ganeswara Rao, who is Manager in-charge of filing appeals against the acquittals retired on 31.5.2004, that thereafter Sri T.M.Y. Swamulu, became Manager, but he was suspended in view of disciplinary case against him and that the deponent of the affidavit was promoted on 30.12.2005. He was in-charge of filing appeals against the acquittal cases. He has been processing similar appeals, but the work could not be completed in time, as the office was shifted twice from one place to another. It took some time to trace the files in Public Prosecutor's office. After tracing the file, message was sent to Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, for deputing concerned office to file an affidavit. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. I-Town, Godavarikhani, came to the office and his affidavit is filed in support of the application to condone the delay. In view of this appeal papers could not be represented in time.

(3.) A plain reading of the affidavit would disclose that frequent postings of persons as Managers and shifting of Public Prosecutor's office are two prime reasons shown as causes for the delay in representing the appeal papers. In view of the reasons that would follow, we are not able to accept the plea that administrative reasons alleged in affidavit must weigh with the Court in condoning the delay in representing the appeal papers. It is of course true that ordinarily the Court is lenient in extending time for complying with procedural requirements to avail the remedy from the High Court. But in a criminal case especially an appeal by the State under Section 378(2) and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC), other considerations must and ought to weigh with the Court even while considering applications by the State for condonation of delay in presentation or representation. We have examined this application with reference to the possible destruction of records, destruction of material objects (MOs) which have no value and post criminal trial requirements that are followed by the Sessions Court.