9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Shri Pravir Choudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. Leave granted. 2. The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) and consequentially rejecting of application for grant of leave to appeal. Before we deal with the legality of the order refusing to condone the delay in making the application for grant of leave, a brief reference to the factual background would suffice. 3. Application for grant of leave was made in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ). A judgment of acquittal was passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, Nagaland. The judgment was pronounced on 18-12-2002. As there was delay in making the application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code, application for condonation of delay was filed. As is revealed from the application for condonation, copy of the order was received by the concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of leave was rejected. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the approach of the High Court is not correct and in fact it is contrary to the position of law indicated by this Court in various cases. In the application for condonation of delay the various factors which were responsible for the delayed filing were highlighted. There was no denial or dispute regarding the correctness of the assertions and, therefore, the refusal to condone the delay in filing application is not proper. It has to be noted that police officials were involved in the crime. The background facts involved also assume importance. As the police officers attached to a Minister had allegedly killed two persons, therefore, the mischief played by some persons interested to help the accused colleagues could not have been lost sight of. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of the service of notice. 6. As noted above a brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary. The background facts of the prosecution version are as followed. 7. On 29th May, 1999 the five accused/respondents comprised the escort party of a State Cabinet Minister. The case of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case is sufficient. Although no special indulgence can be shown to the Government which, in similar circumstances, is not shown to an individual suitor, one cannot but take a practical view of the working of the Government without being unduly indulgent to the slow motion of its wheels. 11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra [1975 (2) SCC 840] this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram [ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94 (PC)] it was observed that true guide for a Court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Court reiterated that the expression every day s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts, omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the consideration that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have a little play at the joints . Due recognition of these limitations on governmental functioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
