Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN, J.
Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Guwahati Custom Division – Applicant
Versus
Md. Sahabuddin Ahmed - Respondents
I.A. 895 of 2016 in Crl. L.P. 89 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2017
For the Applicant : Mr. S.C. Keyal, ASGI
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Sarania, Advocate
The judgment emphasized the need for diligence and sufficient cause in condoning delays, highlighting that the law of limitation applies equally to all litigants, including government bodies.
Headnote:
Condonation - Delayed Appeal Filing - Limitation Act - Section 5 - NDPS Act - Section 21(C), Section 29
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India filed a condonation application for delayed appeal filing against the judgment of acquittal under the NDPS Act. The delay was attributed to various administrative and procedural issues within the department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay was not intentional, but the department failed to act diligently and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay. The court dismissed the application and the leave application on the same grounds.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the reasons provided by the Union of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause for delayed approach and the need for diligence in presenting the appeal. It highlighted that the law of limitation applies equally to all litigants, including the government, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the condonation application and the leave application, as it found no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 325 days in preferring the appeal.
This condonation application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the petitioner, Union of India for the delayed approach in preferring the connected appeal before this High Court against the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) in Sessions Case No. 355(K)/2005 whereby the learned court acquitted the accused of the offence under section 21 (C) read with section 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Admittedly the delay in preferring the appeal is 325 days. The applicant contended inter alia that the copy of the judgment dated 10.11.2014 was received and forwarded to the department in the month of January, 2015. The Assistant Commissioner of the department vide his letter dated 11.06.2015 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati Customs Division about the approval for filing of the appeal against the judgment and thereafter the Superintendent (Law) forwarded all the documents to its Senior Standing counsel for preparation of appeal along with necessary condonation application and for forwarding the same to the Superintendent (Law) for onward transmission for approval of the Commissioner, Customs Division on 11.06.2015 and since no communication was received from the Senior Standing counsel of the Department, the Superintendent (Law) again reminded the Senior Standing counsel for preparation of the appeal vide communication dated 17.07.2015 but no response was received from the Senior Standing Counsel.
3. It is also contended by the applicant that in the meantime the mandate of the Senior Standing counsel was over and the name of the Senior Standing counsel was not recommended for extension and as such the Senior Standing counsel was not authorised to continue as the Standing Counsel of the department. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 29.07.2015 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati Customs Division to distribute the cases which were filed by the Senior Standing counsel and accordingly the cases were distributed amongst the remaining three Standing counsels of the department.
4. Thereafter the case records were handed over to the Junior Standing counsel for preparation of the appeal along with the condonation application and though the Standing counsel was requested vide letter dated 09.09.2015 for preparation of draft appeal at the earliest, however, on 13.10.2015 the said Junior Standing counsel returned back the file informing that she was unable to prefer the appeal due to her illness.
5. The department thereafter requested the Assistant Solicitor General, Gauhati High Court vide letter dated 13.10.2015 to prepare the appeal and condonation application and since all the documents were not forwarded to him he requested the Assistant Commissioner to furnish all the requested documents vide communication dated 25.10.2015 and on receipt of the documents in the month of November, 2015 the learned Addl. Solicitor General prepared the draft appeal and forwarded the same to the department for approval on 03.12.2015 which was in turn forwarded to the Commissioner, Customs at Shillong for further approval on 18.12.2015 and after obtaining his approval which was received on 29.01.2016 the appeal was preferred and consequently there was delay of 325 days in preferring the appeal.
6. It is contended by the applicant that the delay was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant and there was no negligence or laches on his part.
7. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General refers to the case of the State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Ors. reported in 2005 (3) SCC 752 and also Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Armugam (dead) by legal heirs reported in 2015 (3) SCC 569 to project that the State is an impartial machinery working through their officers and they should not be treated as an independent litigant and their delay condonation application should be liberally construed.
8. Mr. Keyal also submits that the
