IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
State Of Manipur - Appellant
Versus
Teresa @ Nengboi & Ors. - Respondents
MC(GCA) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Delay Condonation - Government Criminal Appeal - Article 114 of the Scheme of Limitation Act - The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court excluded the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 for the purpose of limitation. The appeal filed by the applicant State on 25.04.2022 is well within the period of limitation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant State filed an application to condone the delay in filing the Government Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appeal filed by the applicant State on 25.04.2022 is well within the period of limitation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which excluded the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 for the purpose of limitation.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 and whether the delay should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Article 114 of the Scheme of Limitation Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which excluded the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 for the purpose of limitation, to determine that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the condone delay application and directed the Registry to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and post the same for admission.
JUDGMENT
This application has been filed by the applicant State to condone the delay (if any) in filing the Government Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Learned Special Judge (ND& PS), Lamphelpat, Imphal, whereby acquitting accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11.
1. Heard Mr. Athouba Khaidem, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant and perused the materials available on record.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the State has preferred the appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (ND&PS), Lamphelpat in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018. He would submit that after passing the judgment, the matter was entrusted to the Additional Public Prosecutor for filing an appeal. Since the certified copy of the judgment has not been handed over, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wrote a letter to the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur to furnish the certified copy of the judgment and order.
3. He would further submit that there was lot of correspondence exchanged between the Special Secretary (Home), the Deputy Secretary (Home) and the Additional Public Prosecutor for obtaining certified copies of deposition, documents and 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses and other related documents. After obtaining the requisite copies, finally the appeal papers were presented before this Court on 25.04.2022.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as per Article 114 of the Scheme of Limitation Act, the limitation for filing appeal against the order of acquittal is 90 days and period of 90 days expires on 17.03.2021. He would submit that in a suo-motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court excluded the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 for the purpose of limitation. In the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that notwithstanding the actual balance of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1.3.2022. Thus, according to him, the 90 days period expires of 30.5.2022. Since the appeal has been preferred on 25.04.2022 well within the limitation pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court may condone the delay and entertain the appeal. Therefore he prays to allow this application and entertain the appeal.
5. This Court considered the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.
6. The judgment in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018 was passed on 17.12.2020 against which the State filed an appeal on 25.04.2022 by contending that in a suo-motu W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed an order on 10.1.2022 directing that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.1.2022 reads as under:
'Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to disposed of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance
The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court excluding the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 for the purpose of limitation influenced the Court's decision to allow the condone delay application.
The Government or a Government agency is not a privileged litigant and is required to explain the delay in the same manner as an ordinary litigant to get the relief of condonation of delay under Sect....
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.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained, and inaction prior to the pandemic does not qualify for condonation under the Limitation Act.
The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated for condonation of delay, and negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify the delay. The court a....
No meritorious claim should be defeated on mere cause of delay especially in situation where delay was sufficiently explained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that vague and non-specific explanations for delay in filing an appeal, especially in the context of Covid-19 related challenges, may not be suffic....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.