STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SIDDIK MIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 for condoning the delay of 150 days along with an application for granting leave to prefer appeal by the petitioner State against the order of acquittal dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in S.T. 42 (WT/SV2008 acquitting the respon-dents from the liability of charges framedunder Section 376(1) and 323 of IPC.

(2.) Heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned pub-lic prosecutor in-charge for the State peti-tioner as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.C. Deb, learned counsel for the respondent accused.

(3.) In support of the contentions made in the petition for condonation, Mr. Debnath would contend that delay of 150 days caused in filing appeal against the judgment acquit-ting the respondents is bona fide, and not intentional as the State is a machinery impersonal and nobody is looking into the interest of the Government properly though the employees/officers are entrusted with specific responsibilities but those employ-ees/officers try to do their job leisurely and, not only that, they also try to shift their re-sponsibilities to other officers. In this way the decision for preferring appeal could not be taken in time and as a result of which even the application for obtaining the certi-fied copy was also filed at a belated stage. He also contended that the learned public prosecutor who conducted the trial of the case even did not place the original certi-fied copies of the judgment dated 27.2.2009 along with all other relevant papers like deposition and police docket while sending the file to the Law Department. At that situ-ation there was no other alternative to the Law Department except to request the lear-ned Additional Public Prosecutor Sonamura to place the original certified copy of the judgment in question. On request of the Law Department the Additional Public Pros-ecutor Sonamura applied for the certified copy of the judgment and only on 24.4.2009, i.e. after about two months and the same was ready for delivery on 25.4.2009 and thereafter the judgment along with the po-lice docket were sent to the Law Department for its decision. Thereafter, the file was placed before the office of the learned Publie Prosecutor, High Court and the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court took the file to his residential chamber for preparing the draft but unfortunately the file was mis-placed as at the relevant time the residence of the learned Public Prosecutor, was being renovated and not only the instant file, even other files were also mixed with the books and files kept in the room. After locating the file, on 22.9.2009 the learned Public Prosecutor, dictated the memo of appeal along with the application for special leave to his Secretary/Stenographer but the Sec-retary/Stenographer of the learned Public Prosecutor could not type it out in time as his wife was pregnant and admitted to a Nursing Home. Only after her release from the nursing home on 15.10.2009 the file was placed before the learned Public Prosecu-tor. Accordingly, the same was sent to the Law Department but by this time delay of 150 days was caused in filing the appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay.with the application for special leave was filed on 27.10.2009. Hence, 150 days delay was caused in preferring the appeal in ques-tion.