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.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 233 days in filing an appeal against order of acquittal passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore(FAC) in Special CC.No.1 of 2016 dated 26.04.2019)

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal as against the order of acquittal passed in Special CC.No.1 of 2016 dated 26.04.2019 by the learned IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is the State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pollachi. In the affidavit filed in support of the criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner on 04.10.2019 filed copy application for getting certified copy of the judgment and later the same was delivered to him on 12.11.2019. After obtaining the certified copy, the petitioner presented the case papers to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Special Court, POCSO Act, Coimbatore to offer opinion in respect to the filing of appeal. The learned Special Public Prosecutor offered opinion on 17.08.2020 and after obtaining the opinion, proposal was sent to the Superintendent of Police, District Police, Coimbatore. In turn, the same was sent to the Joint Secretary to Government, Home(Cts-VII) Department dated 31.05.2021. Later the Government sent the proposal to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras on 22.06.2021 vide Government Lr.No.28992/Cts.VII/ 2021-1 dated 21.06.2021 and the same was received by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, High Court, Madras on 22.06.2021. After perusing the entire records, the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras thought that this is a fit case for filing an appeal against acquittal and accordingly sent a legal opinion to the Joint Secretary to Government in turn. Due to the said reasons, delay of 233 days has occurred.

3. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) would contend that due to the administrative delay, the petitioner is unable to present the appeal within the period of limitation. Further, in the impugned judgment, without considering the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in a perspective manner, acquitted the accused, which is erroneous in law. Further due to the lockdown announced by the Government and also due to the exemption given by our Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal papers have not been presented immediately within the limitation and therefore, it would be necessary to condone the delay.

4. Per contra, the respondent/accused has filed counter stating that he was charged under Section 3 r/w 5(1)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Special CC.No.1 of 2016 and the learned IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore (FAC) held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and consequently he was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges by the judgment dated 26.04.2019, against which the present criminal appeal has been filed. He further stated that the judgment was passed on 26.04.2019 and the application for the certified copy of the judgment was filed on 04.10.2019 with a delay of 162 days and from the date of the certified copy being made ready i.e. on 11.11.2019 to the date of filing of the appeal on 08.09.2021, there was a delay of 668 days, in all, totally 830 days. He further submits that the period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal is 90 days, however there has been no explanation from the prosecution for the inordinate delay of 162 days in filing the application for the certified copy of the judgment. He further submits that it is a settled law that each day’s delay has to be properly explained. According to him, there is no proper explanation for the delay in filing the appeal after obtaining the order copy.

5. Submi