Charanjit Talwar, J.

( 1 ) A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal by which acquittal of the respondents is sought to be set aside has been raised. The plea is that the appeal is time barred.

( 2 ) THE application seeking leave to appeal (Cr. M. No 30 of 1986) was filed or July 9, 1986. The grounds of appeal also dated July 9 1986 were filed along with the said application. On an objection raised by the Registry that the appeal was filed after the period of limitation Cr. M Application No. 30-A of 1986 was filed by the State on August 19 1986 As no affidavit in support of the application bad been filed, it was returned to the counsel. The application was refiled on September 1, 1986. It was 17 placed for hearing on November 10, 1986. The following order was passed thereon:- "let the application be registered. Delay is condoned subject to just exceptions, if any. " Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was admitted. It was further directed that the appeal be heard along with Cri. Appeal No. 177 of 1985, entitled Dinesh Kumar v. State.

( 3 ) ON July 19, 1988, Mr. Mullah, learned counsel for the appellant in connected appeal (Dinesh Kumar v. State) addressed us. Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondent (State) also made submissions. It was at that stage Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent in Cr. Appeal No. 169 of 1986 pointed out that the appeal filed by the State was hopelessly barred by time. To appreciate his contention, it is necessary to notice certain relevant dates.

( 4 ) THE impugned judgment was passed on July 26, 1985. The State filed the application for seeking certified copy on August 13, 1985. It is averred in Cr. M. No. 30-A of 1985 that the said application was returned by the Copying Agency on October 8, 1985 as the records of the case had been forwarded to this Court (presumably because of the pendency of Cr. Appeal No. 177 of 1985 ). It is the case of the applicant that the said application was re-filed in the Copying Agency of the Sessions Court on October 24, 1985 as it was found that the record was still with that Court and not with the High Court. That application was returned on April 15 1986 with the remarks that the record bad in fact been sent to the High Court by then. The application dated April 17, 1986 for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment was then moved in this Court on April 19,1986. The copy was ready on May 2, 1987 but was taken delivery on May 3, 1986, The application seeking leave to appeal (Cr. M. No. 30/86) was filed on July 9, 1986.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the applicant s own showing the State took 244 days in obtaining the certified copy. From the dates which have been quoted above, the time spent by the State in obtaining the certified copy is as follows :- Month No- of days August, 1985 18 September, 1985 30 October, 1985 8+8 November, 1985 30 December, 1985 31 January, 1986 31 February, 1986 28 March, 1986 31 April, 1986 154-12 May, 1986 2 Total 244 18

( 6 ) ASSUMING for the sake of arguments that the time so spent can be deducted from the period of limitation, even then the application seeking leave to appeal cr. M. No. 30 of 1986) was filed after 104 days of passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. As we have noticed, this is as per the showing of the State.

( 7 ) MR. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contest the proposition that the period in obtaining the certified copy was 244 days, as claimed by the State. He submits that the period from October 8. 1885, i. e. , the date on which the application made by the State to the Copying Agency was returned, upto April 19, 1986, the date on which a fresh application was made in the Registry of this Court, cannot be execluded. He has drawn our attentiun to the fact there is no endorsement by the Registry of this Court on the application which was admittedly returned to the applicant on October, 8, 1985 that it (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document