Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original accused in R.C.C. No.554 of 2014, were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed on 03-07-2017 for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The State sought to appeal the acquittal but filed the appeal with a delay of 15 months and 8 days. The State filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.8 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, claiming that after the judgment, the Police Prosecutor sent a proposal to the District Magistrate on 24-08-2017, and sanction was granted on 27-09-2017, received on 05-10-2017. The learned Sessions Judge condoned the delay on 18-03-2019. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined whether the explanation constituted 'sufficient cause' for the entire delay. The court noted that the State's explanation only covered the period from 24-08-2017 to 05-10-2017, leaving the remaining period unexplained. The court held that the State failed to show due diligence and that the delay was not properly explained. The court set aside the order condoning delay and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The State sought condonation of 15 months and 8 days delay in filing appeal against acquittal. The court held that the explanation of administrative processing time (from 24-08-2017 to 05-10-2017) does not account for the remaining delay, and the State failed to show due diligence. The delay was not properly explained and the order condoning delay was set aside. (Paras 2-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 - Delay Condonation - The court observed that while the State is not an ordinary litigant, it must still provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. The mere fact that the appeal has merit does not automatically entitle the State to condonation of a long, unexplained delay. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in condoning the delay of 15 months and 8 days caused in filing the appeal by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 18-03-2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Beed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.8 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Acquittal appeal
- State appeal
- Delay explained
- Administrative delay
- Negligence
- Due diligence
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 6
Criminal Writ Petition No.667 of 2019
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi for petitioners, Mr. P. K. Lakhotia, APP for respondent-State
Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur, Sayyad Manjur s/o Sayyad Ahmed, Sayyad Simanuyah w/o Sayyad Manjur, Sayyad Aayesha d/o Sayyad Manjur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging order condoning delay in filing appeal against acquittal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original accused) sought quashing of the order dated 18-03-2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Beed condoning delay of 15 months and 8 days in filing appeal by the State.
Filing Reason
The State filed appeal against acquittal with delay; petitioners challenged the condonation of delay on ground of lack of sufficient cause.
Previous Decisions
Petitioners were acquitted by JMFC, Beed on 03-07-2017 in R.C.C. No.554 of 2014. State filed Misc. Criminal Application No.8 of 2019 for condonation of delay, which was allowed on 18-03-2019.
Issues
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in condoning the delay of 15 months and 8 days caused in filing the appeal by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the delay was not properly explained and the State failed to show sufficient cause.
State argued that the delay was due to administrative process and not intentional, and the appeal has merit.
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must show 'sufficient cause' for the entire period of delay. The State, though not an ordinary litigant, must still provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Mere administrative processing time does not explain a delay of 15 months and 8 days when only a few months are accounted for. The order condoning delay without proper explanation is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Present writ petition has been filed invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.8 of 2019 by learned Sessions Judge, Beed on 18-03-2019 thereby condoning the delay of 15 months and 8 days caused in preferring the appeal by the State.
It is stated that there is delay of 15 months and 8 days.
The delay was not intentional, but it was due to the administrative process.
Procedural History
Petitioners were acquitted by JMFC, Beed on 03-07-2017. State filed appeal with delay and filed Misc. Criminal Application No.8 of 2019 for condonation of delay. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the application on 18-03-2019. Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No.667 of 2019 challenging that order. High Court allowed the petition on 11-03-2020.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34
- Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226, 227
