The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay and the need to establish a case for grant of leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal.

P.S. TEJI, J.

Crl.L.P. 544/2017 & Crl.M.A 15394/2017 (Condonation of delay)

1. The State has filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for seeking condonation of delay of 140 days in preferring the accompanying leave petition to challenge the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by learned Special Judge(NDPS)/Additional Session Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.52004/2016 in case FIR No.847/2014, registered under Section 498A/304B of IPC at Police Station Begum Pur, Delhi.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been submitted that the appellant could not prefer the appeal within the stipulated period as the file of the case was sent to various authorities and after passing through various channels, the file was sent to Department of Law and Justice and Legal Affairs. On 06.02.2017, a report on acquittal was prepared by the Additional Public Prosecutor which was forwarded to the Chief Prosecutor and on 08.02.2017, the Chief Prosecutor found the case fit for appeal and referred the matter to the Director of Prosecution. On 09.02.2017, the Director of Prosecution gave the opinion and vide letter dated 27.07.2017, the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs communicated the decision to file appeal. Thereafter, copy of the impugned judgment was attached and the appeal was prepared. In support of the contentions made, judgments in case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107 and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others 2005 (3) SCC 752 have been relied upon.

3. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors AIR 2010 SC 3043 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that :

“In the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., [1988 (38) Excise Law Times 739 (SC)], this Court while granting some latitude to the Government in relation to condonation of delay, still held that there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay and as there was no whisper to explain what legal problems occurred in filing the Special Leave Petition, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Similarly, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. A.MD. Bilal & Co., [1999 (108) Excise Law Times 331 (SC)], the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 502 days in filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanation rendered for condonation of delay. The provisions of Order 22 Rule 9, CPC has been the subject matter of judicial scrutiny for considerable time now. Sometimes the Courts have taken a view that delay should be condoned with a liberal attitude, while on certain occasions the Courts have taken a stricter view and wherever the explanation was not satisfactory, have dismissed the application for condonation of delay.”

4. From the above facts, it appears that the delay occurred whence the file was referred to the Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs. We may have been inclined to further examine the justification for the delay, but we find on examination of the case on merits that, even otherwise, the leave petition does not merit issuance of notice. In the entire application for condonation of delay, the State has failed to give reasonable explanation which caused delay in filing the appeal. There is no whisper in the application to explain what legal problems occurred in filing the application seeking leave to file the appeal. We are of the view that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay. On this short ground, the present application and the leave petition are liable to be dismissed. In any event, we have also examined the impugned judgment. We are of the view that, even on merits, the State has been unable to make out a case for grant of leave in the present leave petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Court below.

5. Leave to appeal has been sought by the State feeling dissatisfied by