STATE OF M P Vs. MANISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on I. A. No. 10194/05, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) THIS petition filed by State for leave to appeal is barred by limitation of 92 days. The submission of the learned Counsel for the State is that judgment of acquittal was pronounced on 20-12-2004 and the application for obtaining certified copy was filed on 21-4-05. The certified copy was received on 26-4-05 and the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted proposal for filing appeal on 3-5-05 to District Magistrate, Morena and thereafter on 11-5-05 a proposal was forwarded to the Law Department by the District Magistrate Morena which was received in the Law Department on 17-5-05 and permission was granted on 27-5-05 by Law Deptt. Due to vacation in the High Court from 14-5-05 upto 19-6-05 the appeal was filed on 20-6-05. This application of the State is supported by the affidavit of Ashish Meshram, Sub-Divisional Officer Police, Jaura. Thereafter State has filed the affidavit of Rajiv Dandotiya, Additional Public Prosecutor, Morena in which it has been mentioned that as per the rules of M. P. Government and the directions of the Court, the copy of the judgment in Session Trial No. 282/00 was forwarded to the District Magistrate and the same was not forwarded to the Deputy Director, Distt. Morena nor was handed over to him. When letter was received about the filing of the appeal from the office of Advocate General, the matter was inquired and he forwarded his opinion on 3-5-05 to the District Magistrate, Morena. He has submitted its opinion when a direction was given to him. State has also filed another affidavit of Shri R. K. Kulhare, Deputy Secretary, Govt. of M. P. , Ministry of Law and Legislative Department, Bhopal in which he has stated that the State Government or the Department of Law and Legislative has not issued any direction for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment by the Court. Law and Legislative Department vide their demi-official letter dated 12-12-83 has given direction to the District Magistrates and Public Prosecutors to submit the proposal about the filing of the appeal. He has also placed the copies of the memorandum dated 14-7-87, 15-11-96, 5-2-97, 18-3-97, 19-10-98 and 30-10-2004, in which directions have been issued to the District Magistrate, Public Prosecutors, Director General of Police, Secretary, Lokayukta, Principal Secretary/secretary of all the Departments of Govt. of M. P. and to the office of Advocate General, regarding filing of appeals.

(3.) SO far as the question of condonation of delay of this petition is concerned, it is true that after the judgment passed by the Trial Court on 20-12-04 the Additional Public Prosecutor applied for certified copy on 21-4-05, i. e. , after the expiry period of appeal, Additional Public Prosecutor submitted its proposal for filing appeal on 3-5-05. We have found that there is no delay on behalf of the Law and Legislative Department in granting permission for filing appeal but certainly there is delay and laches on the part of the Additional Public Prosecutor in submitting opinion as well as on the part of District Magistrate in forwarding the matter for permission and not monitoring the matter properly. In fact, there was delay on the initial stage of Additional Public Prosecutor and District Magistrate. They both were knowing about the pronouncement of the judgment but did not care even to apply for certified copy of the judgment in time. Thus, there is delay and there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of these two authorities, therefore, prima facie the State has not made out any case for condonation of delay. If the State is following a defective procedure and officers are shirking their responsibility from one officer to another and not filing the petitions in time, the Courts are helpless and not obliged to condone the delay in every case. However, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. reported in 1996 III AD (SC )1 , AIR1996 SC 1623 , (1996 )3 CALLT62 (SC ), 1996 (2 )CTC109 , 2002 (143 )ELT249 (SC ), JT1996 (3 )SC 371 , 1996 (2 )SCALE820 , (1996 )3 SCC132 , [1996 ]1 SCR1060 , 1996 (2 )UJ105 (SC ) in which it has been held : It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court-- be it by private party or the State-- are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay-- international or otherwise-- is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and require adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from the perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. Though, there are laches on the part of the State but considering the decision in the aforesaid case of State of Haryana (supra), the application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.