Union of India applied for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal under the NDPS Act. The High Court held that no reasonable explanation existed for the nearly 1.5-year delay. The application was rejected.
Application for condonation of delay rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
USJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.2178 of 2009 IN
Criminal Appeal No. of 2009
Union of India.. Applicant
v/s.
Mrs. Manisha Jadhav & Ors... Respondents
Mr. D.N. Salvi for Applicant.
Mr. Taraq Sayad and Sartaj Shaikh for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
R.Y.GANOO, JJ.
Dated : 5th November, 2009
P.C. :
1.This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing Criminal Application seeking leave to appeal under
Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of
acquittal passed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act in
NDPS Special Case No.13 of 2005. Accused No.1 has been
convicted and accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the present
respondents, have been acquitted.
2.As per the office note, the Application for seeking
leave to appeal is beyond time by 1 year and 76 days.
Surprisingly, no explanation has been furnished to justify
this inordinate delay for approaching this Court by the
Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau,
Mumbai. It is state that the order was passed on 3.11.2007
and an application for a certified copy of the same was
submitted on 27.11.2007. The certified copy was received
on 03.12.2007. The application has been filed on or about
29.01.2009and there is no explanation for the period from
04.12.2007 except to say that it was decided to file an
Appeal against the order after obtaining the legal opinion
of the Counsel appearing before the lower Court.
3.Mr. Salvi, learned Counsel for the Union of India has
invited our attention to the decision in the case of Mangu
Ram V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 76 SC 105 in
support of his contentions that the provisions of Section 5
of the Limitations Act 1963 are applicable for condonation
of delay despite the combine reading of Section 378(4) and
378(5) of Criminal Procedure Code.
4.However, in the instant case, as noted earlier no
explanation has been furnished in approaching this Court
after a period of 1 year and 76 days and only because the
accused No.1 has filed an Appeal before this Court, cannot
be the sole reason to condone such an inordinate delay.
Hence, the application for condonation of delay is
rejected.
[R.Y.GANOO, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether inordinate delay of 1 year and 76 days in filing an appeal under Section 378 CrPC can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963.
Whether the filing of a co-accused's appeal justifies condonation of the applicant's inordinate delay without independent explanation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mangu Ram V/s. Municipal Corporation of DelhiReferred¶19
Mangu Ram V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 76 SC 105
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
Mrs. Manisha Jadhav
Others
B.H. Marlappalle
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court