Administrative delay due to departmental file routing does not constitute sufficient grounds for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals. Additionally, an appellate court shall not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's assessment is perverse, ignores material evidence, or disregards fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay in filing petition - Administrative process of routing files through various departments does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay when a statutory period of limitation is prescribed. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(d) and 13(2) - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because another view is possible - Interference is only warranted if the trial court's finding is perverse, based on a failure to consider admissible evidence, or ignores material facts. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a corruption case, filed with a delay of over six years. The reason provided for the delay was the time taken for procedural file movement between administrative departments. The respondent had been acquitted of corruption-related charges by the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The court held that departmental delays in processing files do not justify the condonation of inordinate delay in filing an appeal. On merits, the trial court’s decision was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, including the failure to produce crucial trap witnesses and the lack of testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in filing the leave to appeal against acquittal should be condoned and whether the trial court's acquittal required appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative delays arising from internal government procedures do not override the statutory limitation period for filing appeals. Furthermore, an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court cannot disturb such findings unless the trial court’s judgment is proven to be perverse or demonstrably unsustainable.

Result: Petition and associated application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. failure to provide cogent reasons for delay in filing prevents condonation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. high court narrow scope of interference in trial court acquittal verdicts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)

M.S.SAHOO, J. The petition has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.117 of 2006 arises out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.32/2006 acquitting the opposite party from the charges under Section 7/13(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

2. I.A. No.6 of 2018

The petition has been filed for condonation of delay of 6 years 146 days in filing the petition.

3. On Perusal of the petition, the reason indicated in the petition is that the file had to be routed through different Departments of the State which requires considerable time for taking final decision by different Departments.

As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2012)3 SCC 563 (Office of the Chief Postmaster General & others v. Living Media Ltd. and another) and (2014) 4 SCC 108 ( Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T.Murali Babu ) such explanation for delay in filing of petition beyond the statutory period i.e. pushing file through different Departments causing delay, is not a good ground to condone the delay when statutory period of limitation has been prescribed and valuable right accrues in favour of the person against whom petition/appeal has been filed.

4. Since no cogent reason has been shown to condone the delay, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 6 years 146 days in filing the petition, and accordingly the I.A. along with the CRLLP are directed to be dismissed.

CRLLP No.47 of 2010

5. Apart from not condoning the delay in filing the petition and rejecting the I.A. praying for condonation of delay, this Court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court, in view of the leave sought for filing the appeal. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-State referring to the grounds stated in the petition seeking leave to appeal strenuously argued that it is a fit case where leave should be granted for filing the appeal against acquittal.

However, it is fairly submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction for grant of leave, this Court has only to consider the material produced by the prosecution and/or the defence that was considered by the learned trial court.

6. Having gone through the judgment against which the petition has been filed, it is evident that the learned trial court has considered all the relevant materials brought before it, has given cogent reason for not accepting the prosecution case.

The learned trial court after due consideration has found that the over hearing witnesses or the shadow witness who had accompanied the decoy-complainant to hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused, was not produced as witness. It has been therefore held that the said vital link in the entire chain of circumstances is completely missing.

P.W.2-complainant/decoy in his deposition has not supported the prosecution as far as demand of bribe by the accused is concerned, rather, his statement as P.W. has helped the accused regarding his plea that he refused to accept the money and “pushed” the money kept on the tea table in the drawing room, at the residence of the accused. The evidence of a Trap Laying Officer-P.W.7 does not lend any support to the prosecution as far as demand and acceptance of bribe is concerned.

7. In Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. , (2020) 10 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 776 (at page 179 of SCC), the law on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 CrPC and the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held:-

14.1. In Babu [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3244

ORISSA HIGH COURTM.S. Sahoo, JState of Orissa – AppellantVersusMuralidhar Swain – RespondentCRLLP No.47 of 2010

Cases Referred (3)

ORISSA HIGH COURT
M.S. Sahoo, J
State of Orissa – Appellant
Versus
Muralidhar Swain – Respondent
CRLLP No.47 of 2010