R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is sought to be filed by the State represented by the Public prosecutor questioning the orders of acquittal passed by the IV Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S. C. No. 69/95 on 28-6-96, and crl. M. P. 5163/97 is filed for condoning the delay of 337 days involved in presenting the said appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein was the accused in S. C. 69/95 on the file of the iv Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and after the trial of the case was over, the accused was acquitted by the Judgment dated 28-6-96. Subsequently the State has chosen to file the present Appeal on 17-9-97 against the orders of acquittal. As there was delay of 337 days involved in filing the appeal, the state has filed Crl. M. P. 5163/97 for condoning such delay. The petition for condoning the delay is supported by an affidavit given by the Detective Sub- inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Secunderabad. The reasons urged in the affidavit for such delay are that after the judgment was pronounced on 28-6-96 by the lower Court, a copy application was made for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on 1-7-96 in copy application no. 5900/96 and copy stamps were called for on 19-7-96 and the copies were delivered on the same day and the judgment copy was submitted to the commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City for obtaining opinion of the additional Public Prosecutor and after the permission was obtained, the appeal was filed on 17-9-97 and that the delay is not intentional and the delay may be condoned.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondent/accused in the said petition filed for condoning the delay and the respondent is represented by an Advocate. Heard both sides.

( 4 ) THE contention of the respondent is that the copy application bearing no. 5900/96 referred to in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector does not relate to any copy application filed on behalf of the State; that the said copy application was filed by the accused and certified copy was obtained on 19-7-96 and the Sub-Inspector has obtained a xerox copy of the said certified copy of the Judgment which was taken from him and later on filed the present application with false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also produced the original certified copy given by the lower Court to the accused in Copy Application no. 5900/96 and it is clear from the said certified copy of the Judgment of the lower Court that the copy application 5900/96, which is referred to in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector of Police was filed only by the accused seeking certified copy from the lower Court and not on behalf of the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that the Sub-Inspector of Begumpet Police Station, who has given the affidavit in support of the petition has given a false affidavit knowing fully well that such affidavit is false. It is quite reprehensible on the part of the Sub-Inspector to give such false affidavit to mislead the Court with a view to obtain condonation of delay. The reasons urged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay are blatantly false. The Sub- inspector of Police has evidently obtained a xerox copy of the certified copy of the judgment delivered to the accused in C. A. No. 5900/96 and filed the same along with the appeal. It is quite evident that no copy application was filed on behalf of the State for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment of the lower Court for the purpose of preferring the appeal and the xerox copy of the certified copy of the judgment enclosed to the appeal memorandum, which bears copy application No. 5900/96, does not refer to any certified copy of the judgment obtained by the prosecution as mentioned in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case where the petition filed for condonation of delay can be allowed and there are no merits in the petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document