JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

CRM-38908-2019 and CRM-A-2832-2019 (O&M)

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order dt. 03.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, setting aside the conviction of respondents vide judgment dt.1 8.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sirsa, and an application bearing No.CRM-38908-2019 has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay of 580 days in filing the Criminal Appeal.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that though the impugned judgment was pronounced on 03.02.2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, the District Magistrate, Sirsa felt that it was a case for filing a Criminal Appeal and issued a letter to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana on 29.04.2018; that the sanction was granted by the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, for filing the Appeal; and the Appeal was filed on 06.11.2019.

3. No explanation was offered in the application as to why the decision to file the Appeal taken by the District Magistrate, Sirsa and communicated to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana on 23.04.2018, was not acted upon till 05.11.2019, when the Appeal is filed. In our opinion, there is negligence on the part of the Appellant-State in taking steps for filing the Appeal within the period of limitation prescribed by law.

4. In Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Supreme Court has held no doubt some laxity is given for Government's inefficiency but with the technological advancement now the Judicial view prevalent earlier when such facilities were not available has been overtaken. It held:

"12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there