STATE OF J&K Vs. ABDUL SATTAR LONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application moved by the applicants-appellants for restoration of LPA No.93/2012 dismissed for non-prosectuion on 27th June, 2016 is delayed by 640 days and therefore, the instant application seeking condonation of delay.

(2.) It is contended that LPA No.93/2012 filed by the State was being pursued by the applicants diligently for four years. However, on 27th June, 2016, the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the State counsel who was entrusted the brief at the relevant point of time. Neither the counsel had the knowledge that appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution nor the order of dismissal was conveyed to the applicants-appellants either by respondents or by the office of the Advocate General. It is further contended that due to certain developments, like the law and order situation in the Valley during the year 2016 had worsened as a result thereof, even tempo of life was completely disrupted and the courts were no exception. It is submitted that it was only after the situation normalized, it came to the notice of the appellants that LPA had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Immediate steps were taken, application for getting the certified copy of the dismissal order was moved before the Registry on 10th April, 2018 and without any further waste of time, restoration application was moved. It is lastly contended that given the fact that the appeal involves embezzlement of Rs. 90 lakhs by the respondent/ non-applicant while he was posted as Cashier in JKAP 8th Bn., and for which an FIR stands registered, it would be in the interest of justice to restore the appeal so that a decision on merits is rendered by the Court.

(3.) Mr M. A. Qayoom, Advocate, representing the respondent-non applicant has vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that huge delay of 640 days without their being any sufficient and cogent explanation cannot be condoned on the asking of the applicants. He submits that law and order situation in the Valley worsened only after 8 th July, 2006 and, therefore, the applicants had all the time in the world to seek restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for nonprosecution on 27th June, 2016. The non-applicant also denies that there is any merit in the appeal or there are allegations of embezzlement of Rs. 90 lakhs against the non-applicant.