Point of Law: No meritorious claim should be defeated on mere cause of delay especially in situation where delay was sufficiently explained.

JUDGMENT :

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.02.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the State, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stood allowed by learned Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner herein faced a trial in FIR No.216/2012, dated 02.10.2012, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 452, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In terms of judgment dated 08.09.2016, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., the petitioner was acquitted of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. Against this judgment, an appeal was preferred by the State alongwith an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A copy of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is appended with the present petition as Annexure P3. Copy of order dated 19.02.2022, passed by learned Trial Court is on record as Annexure P5. The grounds taken in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, inter alia, were that after receiving the copy of the judgment, an appeal was filed by the State in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, on 27.03.2017, letter dated 23.03.2017, of Secretary (Home) to the government of Himachal Pradesh was received in the office of District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in which it was stated that the case stood examined by the Law Department and the opinion was that as the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code was cognizable and non bailable, therefore, the appeal was to be filed before learned Sessions Judge and for this reason the appeal could not be filed in time. In terms of contents of the application, delay in filing the appeal was caused due to “lengthy official procedure”, which was not deliberate. This application is stated to have been filed on 26.04.2017. Incidently, this application though was signed by learned District Attorney, Kangra at Dharamshala, the same was not supported by any affidavit of the competent authority, on whose instructions the application was being filed, i.e. the District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala.

3. Though the application was opposed by the accused, yet in terms of order dated 19.02.2022, the same was allowed by learned Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala.

4. In terms of this order, dated 19.02.20222, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P5, learned Appellate Court allowed the application by assigning the reasons that the application disclosed that delay occurred due to “misconception” and the file was moved for filing the appeal in the High Court and on perusal of record, the opinion by Deputy Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was found, wherein it was clarified to learned Magistrate that the appeal has to be filed before learned Sessions Judge and directions were issued to take necessary steps. Learned Appellate Court also observed that the Government Department takes time to reach conclusions in each matter since the files move from one table to another table with “tortoise pace”. Thereafter, learned Appellate Court observed that though there is no rule that the Government machinery has the immunity from Law of Limitation, but for the latches of the Government, public cannot be made to suffer. Learned Appellate Court further went to observe that the victim had filed the complaint on which FIR was registered and in the trial emanating therefrom the accused stood acquitted, but as the process of filing the appeal had resulted in the occurrence of delay