Back
SIKKIM HIGH COURT
S. P. WANGDI, J.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Kolkata – Appellant
Vs.
Nirmal Pradhan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2013
Decided on : 02/12/2013
Condonation of Delay - Filing of Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7/13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order acquitting the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The delay was attributed to unavoidable circumstances by the appellant, while the respondent argued that it was due to negligence and casual manner of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay was avoidable and failed to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, and the appeal was dismissed as being barred by the Law of Limitation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances or negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizing that the term 'sufficient cause' must receive liberal consideration, but the delay must not be a result of negligence, default, or inaction. The court also highlighted the need to adhere to the provisions of the statute and the importance of proving sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as being barred by the Law of Limitation.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In terms of the order dated 6-9-2013, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been taken up today.
3. Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Ali, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that the delay of 206 days in filing the appeal has occurred due to bona fide reasons. It is submitted that the delay is primarily on account of the procedure that had been followed in filing appeals as in the present case.
4. Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 3 of the application which sets out the various dates and events which begin from 22-9-2012 when the impugned judgment was pronounced. The facts set out in paragraph 3 are reproduced below :-
' Para 3 In the instant case it would be evident from the following that the delay has been caused due to un-avoidable circumstances.
22-9-2012 Ld. Court passed impugned order in Case No. 1 of 2005 arising out of the RC No. 50 of 2004 CBI/ACB/KOL, under Section 7/13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 acquitting the accused.
22-9-2012 Date of application for certified copy of impugned order. 6-10-2012 Date when certified copy of impugned order was read for delivery.
8-10-2012 Date of delivery of the Order to CBI/ACB/Kolkata through CBI, Siliguri Branch.
12-10-2012 Order was put up before SP, CBI, ACB, Kolkata for perusal and the file was endorced for comments to the Special PP, who conducted the trial.
26-10-2012 Special Public Prosecutor submitted his written comments with recommendation of filing appeal.
29-10-2012 SP after going through the comment of Special PP, requested the Senior Public Prosecutor of Branch for offering his comments.
1-11-2012 Senior Public Prosecutor, CBI, ACB, Kolkata made his comments.
5-11-2012 Comments of Spl. PP and Sr. PP with recommendation of filing Appeal was put up before the DIG/Head of the Branch (HOB) who asked for comments of SP.
22-11-2012 SP agreed with Special PP and Sr. PP in his note dated 22-11- 2012 for preferring an Appeal against the impugned Judgment/Order, dated 22-9-2012 and instructed the Legal Section to put up detailed comments and grounds of appeal for taking approval of the competent authority for filing appeal.
21-12-2012 SP put up detailed branch comments for filing an appeal before Hon- ble Sikkim High Court against impugned Judgment/Order, dated 22-9-2012.
1-1-2013 DIG/HOB made his comments and recommended for filing appeal and endorsed the file to the Joint Director/Head of the Zone (HOZ) CBI, Kolkata Zone.
2-1-2013 HOZ requested Dy. Legal Adviser (A) to examine and comment.
7-1-2013 DLA (A) after going through the file recommended filing of appeal against the impugned Judgment/Order.
8-1-2013 HOZ after going through the file and comments of different officers of CBI made her comments and agreed with the unanimous recommendation of all for filing the appeal and forwarded the file to SDCBI, New Delhi for orders.
11-1-2013 SDCBI requested Director of Prosecution (DOP), CBI, New Delhi who asked ALA, CBI, SC Zone, New Delhi to examine the matter and offer comments.
14-1-2013 ALA, CBI, SC Zone also recommended in his comments for agitating the matter before Hon- ble High Court by way of filing appeal against the impugned judgment and the file was forwarded to Director of Prosecution (DOP).
15-1-2013 Director of Prosecution also recommended to file appeal and sent back the file to SDCBI (S).
16-1-2013 SDCBI (S) also endorsed the unanimous recommendation of the officers for filing appeal against the impugned judgment and forwarded the file to DCBI who approved the pro- posal and sent back the file to SDCBI (S).
17-1-2013 SDCBI sent the file to HOZ, CBI, Kolkata for necessary action.
21-1-2013 HOZ, Kolkata received the file from CBI, HO, New Delhi and endorsed the file to HOB who in turn endorsed the file to SP for necessary action regarding filing of appeal.
24-1-2013 SP requested the Retainer Counsel of CBI, Calcutta High Court, Calcutta for pre-
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
