STATE OF M.P. Vs. TULARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been presented on behalf of the State to condone the delay in filing of this appeal. The appeal was filed beyond limitation by 38 days.

(2.) THE explanation offered on behalf of the State was that on account of non -availability of the copy by the District Magistrate, the appeal could not be presented in time. Sometime was taken in sending the recommendation by the District Magistrate to the Government at Bhopal. The recommendation was made on 19th July, 1991 and the appeal was filed on 26th July, 1991. In this way, the Government has taken only seven days to finalise the matter whereas no move was made by the prosecution at the district level for filing the appeal against the order of acquittal. .

(3.) IT has been brought to the notice of this Court that the prosecution itself was not interested in filing the appeal and no move was made by the prosecution for the purpose. In para 4 of the affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, it is clearly mentioned that the A.G.P. has sent a proposal to the Superintendent of Police for filing an appeal, but the Superintendent of Police did not move the same to the District Magistrate for onward transmission to the State Government in respect of filing of the appeal. It is alleged in para 5 that only when copy of the judgment was sent by the Additional Sessions Judge to the District Magistrate, action could be taken only on that copy at the level of the District Magistrate himself. The explanation offered on behalf of the State is not at all satisfactory. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.