STATE OF M.P. Vs. BALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Raghuwanshi, learned Govt. Advocate, for the appellant State. He is heard on the question of condonation of delay - I.A. 3277/93.

(2.) THIS application has been opposed by the respondent. While it is true that a liberal approach in the matter of condoning delay is to be adopted but even this liberality has a limit. It cannot be utilised or exploited at infinity. In the case at hand, the appellant State was directed to ascertain the names of those erring officers who contributed to the delay in filing of this appeal. Despite repeated opportunities sought the State has not come out with names of those officers.

(3.) ON simple calculation from 22.12.92 the date of judgment, the period for filing appeal expired on 23.3.93. Certified copy of the judgment was applied for by the appellant -State on 29.12.92 and certified copy was delivered on 13.1.93. In all 15 days were lost in obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment. Going by the copying slip even in the matter of delays for collecting certified copy there are laches on the part of Appellate State which reduces the number of days lost in obtaining certified copy to only 8 days. While the applicant was to appear on 6.1.93 he appeared on 13.1.93 but even including this and taking a total period of 15 days, consumed by the appellant -State for obtaining certified copy, the appeal sought to have filed by 8.4.93 whereas it has been filed on 21.6.93. The appellant -State while calculating time, excluded the period of vacation. But in view of the fact that the period of limitation had already expired prior to commencement of vacation, this exclusion of the summer vacation is not available to the appellant -State. Summer vacation commenced from 10.5.93 although the preceding two days 8th and 9th were also holidays being Saturday and Sunday yet there was more than a month left for the State if it so desired to file the appeal but that was not to be.