Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
The State (NCT of Delhi) – Appellant
Versus
Aarif – Respondent
Cr.L.P. 322 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Delay Condonation - Criminal Appeal - The court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgment, citing COVID-19 pandemic and lack of plausible explanation for the delay as reasons for the dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/State sought condonation of delay of 547 days in filing the Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgment that acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay was not adequately explained and was hit by huge delay and laches, ultimately dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay.
Issues: Delay in filing the Criminal Leave Petition, impact of COVID-19 pandemic on limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods but found no plausible explanation for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Final Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal were both rejected.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 17238/2023
1. By way of the present application, appellant/State seeks condonation of delay of 547 days in filing the present accompanying Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgement dated 20.12.2019 passed by Shri Amit Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court, POCSO (North-West), Rohini, Delhi, in case in Original/Main Charge-sheet in FIR No. 263/2013 dated 25.04.2013, Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi registered under Section 363/376(1)/376(2)(H)/302 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the case of the prosecution and held that no charges have been proved against the accused. The accused was acquitted accordingly.
2. Pertinently, the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2019 was to be filed within statutory period of 90 days.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State and on perusal of application, this Court finds that the file of the present case was marked to the then learned APP, Ms. Neelam Sharma on 21.03.2020 for drafting the appeal, however, since her tenure was coming to an end, she was unable to draft it due to paucity of time. Thereafter, the file was marked to learned APP, Ms. Manjeet Arya and the appeal was prepared and filed on 05.06.2023 with a delay of 547 days.
4. Relevantly, this Court is conscious that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo motto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 directed the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 to be considered out of limitation. However, the present appeal has been filed only in June, 2023 and no plausible explanation has been put forward by the appellant/State for delay caused between March, 2021 till June, 2023. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal sought to be preferred is hit by huge delay and laches.
5. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present application and the same is dismissed.
CRL.L.P 322/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17237/2023
6. In view of order passed in CRL.M.A. 17238/2023, the appeal and the application are rejected.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods and the requirement for a plausible explanation for delay in filing appeals.
Failure to adequately explain a delay of 462 days in filing a Criminal Leave Petition can lead to the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay.
The court emphasized the impact of huge delay and latches in seeking condonation of delay, despite the consideration of the period during the COVID-19 pandemic as out of limitation.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a plausible explanation for delay in filing appeals and considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a plausible explanation for substantial delay in filing a petition and considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods.
Administrative delay is not a ground for condoning delay, and a sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay in filing an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Sufficient cause must be demonstrated for condonation of delay; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not qualify as valid reasons under law, as legal deadlines apply equally to all parties.
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and the need for justifiable grounds for appeal, especially when the grounds existed at the time of trial and acquittal.
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
