324.

08.08.2025 Bd.

Ct. 29 CRR 2033 of 2019 Sanjib Bhattacharjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Achin Jana Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh Mr. Suman Chakraborty Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh Mr. Abhinaba Roy Mr. Koushik Karmakar Mr. Bhaskar Dalui Ms. Chetna Rustagi …for the petitioner Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. Arindam Paoli …for the O.P.No.2 This application has been preferred challenging the order dated 18th December, 2018 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with Criminal Appeal No.

54 of 2018.

By the impugned order court below has rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal against acquittal, filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the a police case was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure being Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 44 of 2007 dated 20th February, 2007, and after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet under section 419/420/408 of the IPC. After conclusion of trial, learned trial court was pleased to acquit the accused person/opposite party no.2 herein under Section 248(1) of the CrPC. on 23rd June 2017.

It is submitted on behalf of the complainant/petitioner that he applied for obtaining certified copy of the said judgment of acquittal on 7th July, 2017 before the copying department but the copying department completed the process of assessment only on 5th March, 2018. He further submits that due to such inordinate delay, he could not collect the information in right time and, as such, the application for obtaining certified copy was struck off. Thereafter, he again applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the same was ready for delivery to him on 28th May, 2018.

The petitioner in order to ascertain the reason for the inordinate delay caused by the copying department had also made an application seeking information in terms of Right to Information Act, 2005 and in response to such query, learned Public Information Officer was pleased to inform that the petitioner had applied for the certified copy on 7th July, 2017 but the case record against such application was provided to the Assistant Clerk of the copying department only on 28th February, 2018.

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as soon as he obtained the certified copy of the impugned order of acquittal he preferred aforesaid appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Chief Judge, Sessions Court, Calcutta being aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2018.

He further submits that due to aforesaid reasons, delay of

347 days in preferring the said appeal had been computed by the department reckoning from the date of delivery of judgment and, therefore, he also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 4th July, 2018 for condonation of delay. However, learned Court below by the impugned order rejected the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the appellant/petitioner herein failed to make out sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within time and, as such, he refused to admit the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the said order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is vague, baseless, improper and court below failed to consider that the petitioner was not responsible for the entire period of delay and it was incidental and, therefore, not intentional. He further contended that the Court below did not consider that the appeal was bona fide, and there were every chance to prove good grounds for succeeding the appeal if it was heard on merits. He further submits that it is trite law that on the ground of a mere technical error, a meritorious appeal should not be thrown away. He should have taken liberal view, while adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay in order to unearth the iss