Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Petitioner
Versus
Raj Kumar Lodha and Others – Respondents
CRMSPL No. 16 of 2022, CRAN Nos. 1, 2 of 2022
Decided On : 28-06-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - Delay of 4 years in filing special leave to appeal against acquittal - Explanation of delay based on official red tapism and procedural delays - Held: Not sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Law of limitation binds all, including government agencies - Special leave to appeal dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an application for condonation of delay of 4 years in filing a special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a cheating case. The CBI explained the delay by stating that it required approval from the highest authority and that there were procedural delays.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the explanation given by the CBI for the delay was not sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court noted that the law of limitation binds all, including government agencies, and that the CBI ought to have been on alert mode in respect of the extra period of limitation under the statute for filing special leave to appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay of 4 years in filing the special leave to appeal was sufficiently explained by the CBI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments which held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court also held that the usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the CBI's application for condonation of delay and consequently, the special leave to appeal was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
1. I am dealing with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing special leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed on 09.03.2018 by the Ld. Special Judge, C.B.I Court no. 2, Bichar Bhawan in connection with Spl. Case No. 67/11 arising out of R.C No. 06A/2000 of CBI ACB, Kolkata.
2. Impugned Judgment was passed on 09.03.2018 and petition for condonation of delay in filing special leave to appeal, was filed on 30.03.2022 i.e. almost after 4 years. Grounds for delay have been explained in the petition for condonation of delay are set out below:
(ii) Thereafter the file was placed before the Superintendent of Police for his comments, who gave his comments on 26th May, 2018.
(iii) Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Kolkata and Dy. Legal Advisor, CBI gave their comments on 12th July, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019 respectively.
(iv) Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and other relevant material, on 06.08.2019, the Joint Director & Head of Zone, CBI, Kolkata Zone recommended for filing Appeal against the impugned Judgment, where after, the file was sent on 06.08.2019 to the Director of Prosecution, CBI HO, New Delhi.
(v) The Director of Prosecution Marked the file to ALA (Consultant marked the file to ALA (Consultant) submitted his comments on 14.08.2019 and he marked the file to the Director of Prosecution who recommending for filing Appeal against the impugned Judgment passed by the Learned Special Judge, and marked the file to the Additional Director in CBI, HO at New Delhi on 16.08.2019.
(vi) Additional Director, CBI placed the file before Director, CBI for approval for filing Appeal against the impugned judgment.
(vii) On 17.08.2019, the Director, CBI accorded approval to the unanimous recommendation of the hierarchy for filing Appeal against the impugned Judgment and order of the Learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court no. 2 Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, where after, the file was returned to the Branch by CBI HO through the Zonal Officer of CBI at Kolkata. The file was received back to CBI, ACB, Kolkata Branch on 21.08.2019.
(viii) Pursuant to the receipt of the approval of the Director, CBI for filing Appeal against the impugned Judgment and order, a self contained note was prepared by CBI, ACB Kolkata for seeking the requisite approval of the Central Government for filing appeal against the impugned Judgment under Section 378 (2) Cr.P.C. and after obtaining the approval of the Head of Zone. CBI, Kolkata, the self Contained Note was forwarded to the Department of personnel and Training, Government of India at New Delhi on 09.09.2019. The date of expiry of limitation period for filing the appeal was duly communicated to them.
(ix) The matter was pursued by CBI to the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India and requesting them to convey the approval of the Central Government for filing Appeal at an early date.
(x) The proposal to file Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Order was examined by the Department of Personal and Training, in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
(xi) The approval of the Central Government for filing appeal against the impugned Judgment was conveyed to the Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Kolkata by the Department of Personal and Training, Government of India, vide their ID dated 10th August, 2018, which was received by CBI, ACB, Kolkata branch on 11.10.2019 along with the copy of advice of the Department of legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India on the proposal of CBI for filing Appeal.
(xii) Thereafter, the draft application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C for f
The principle of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially regarding government bodies, without undue strictness on p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the condonation of delay based on procedural latches and failure to follow CBI guidelines, and the proposal for an amendment to the CBI Crime Manua....
The Government or a Government agency is not a privileged litigant and is required to explain the delay in the same manner as an ordinary litigant to get the relief of condonation of delay under Sect....
The court emphasized the term 'sufficient cause' as a necessary condition for the extension of the prescribed period under the Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of providing adequate reason....
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
The law of limitation applies rigorously, and government departments must provide satisfactory explanations for delays in legal proceedings; mere procedural inefficiencies are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
