Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
The State (GNCT of Delhi) – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Haider – Respondent
Cr.L.P. 323 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Condonation of Delay - Criminal Appeal - The court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgment. The delay of 462 days was not adequately explained and was considered hit by huge delay and laches.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/State sought condonation of delay of 462 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, leading to the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay of 462 days was not adequately explained and was considered hit by huge delay and laches, leading to the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal were rejected in view of the delay not being adequately explained.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 17269/2023
1. By way of the present application, appellant/State seeks condonation of delay of 462 days in filing the present accompanying Criminal Leave Petition against the impugned judgement dated 26.08.2020 passed by Shri N.K. Malhotra, Additional Sessions Judge-06, Special Judge (POCSO), Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, in case in Original/Main Charge-sheet in FIR No. 174/2016 dated 20.03.2016, Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi registered under Section 363/366/376 of IPC read with Section 6 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 20.03.2016 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 06.02.2021 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 462 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 323/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17268/2023
6. In view of order passed in CRL.M.A. 17269/2023, the appeal and the application are rejected.
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 impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods and the requirement for a plausible explanation for delay in filing appeals.
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 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 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.
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
