Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Varun Kumar Jha

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2022CRMP/334/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal. The Court rejected condonation of a 253-day delay, citing Supreme Court precedent that government departments must offer plausible explanations beyond bureaucratic red tape for such lapses.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and accompanying application for condonation of delay were dismissed as having no merit.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Varun Kumar Jha — Chhattisgarh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 334 of 2020

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station, City Kotwali, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Varun Kumar Jha S/o Prashant Kumar Jha, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 505-A, Dondekhurd, Housing Board Colony, Thana - Vidhansabha, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner/State:Mr. B. P. Banjare, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent:Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.

¶10

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Order on Board

¶11

01.08.2022

¶12

Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as on prayer for grant of leave to appeal. The appeal is barred by 253 days.

¶13

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 13247/14 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 354(A)(i), 354(D), 294 & 506-B of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that during official proceeding some delay

¶15

¶16

occurred in fling the instant acquittal appeal due
to departmental procedure which is bona-fide,
unintentional and on account of mechanism of
Government machinery, therefore, the delay so
caused in filing the instant appeal deserves to be
condoned. He further submits that prosecution has
proved his case against the respondent furthermore,
the prosecutrix/complainant has stated against the
respondent but the learned trial Court only on
minor contradiction and omissions disbelieved the
evidence of prosecutrix and acquitted the
respondent from the aforesaid charge which is
unjustified therefore, the delay may be condoned
and the leave to appeal may be granted. In support
of his argument he placed reliance in the matter of
State of Haryanan V. Chandra Mani & Others (1996) 3
SCC 132.

¶17

In turn, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this appeal was filed on 30.01.2020 and as per office note, the appeal is barred by 253 days. All officers of Advocate General Office and Law and Legislative Affair Department are well aware and conversant with the issues involved including the prescribe period of limitation and in the application and the affidavit no explanation of delay of 253 days was made by the appellant. The impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is

¶18

¶19

based upon proper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence. The prosecution has failed to
prove its case against the respondent. The judgment
of acquittal is passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class and the acquittal appeal is
maintainable before Sessions Court but this appeal
has been directly filed before the High Court, so,
the application for condonation of delay and
application for grant of leave to appeal are liable
to be rejected. In support of his argument he
placed reliance in the matter of The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Bherulal passed in SLP
(C) Diary No. 9217/2020vide order dated
15.10.2020.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

It is clear that learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment on 20.02.2019 and the instant petition was filed on 30.01.2020 and as per office note this petition is barred by 253 days.

¶22

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Office of Chief Post Master General & Others V. Living Media India Lted. & Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed in para 12 as under:-

¶23

“12. It is not in dispute that the persons(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of

¶24

¶25

filing a special leave petition in this Court.
They cannot claim that they have a separate
period of limitation when the Department was
possessed with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of plausible
and acceptable explanation, we are posing a
question whey the delay is to be condoned
mechanically merely because the Government or a
wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of condonation of delay when there was no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack
of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be
adopted to advance substantial justice, we are
of the view that in the facts and circumstances,
the Department cannot take advantage of various
earlier decisions. The claim on account of
impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modern technologies
being used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody including the
Government.

¶26

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform
all the government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the
delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no
need to accept the usual explanation that the
file was kept pending for several months/years
due to considerable degree of procedural red-
tape in the process. The government departments
are under a special obligation to ensure that
they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception
and should not be used as an anticipated benefit

¶27

¶28

for government departments. The law shelters
everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering
the fact that there was no proper explanation
offered by the Department for the delay except
mentioning of various dates, according to us,
the Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
condone such a huge delay.”

¶29

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bherulal

¶30

(supra) held in para 4 as under:

¶31

“ 4. A reading of the aforesaid application shows that the reason for such an inordinate delay is stated to be only due to unavailability of the documents and the process of arranging the documents. In paragraph 4 a reference has been made to bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs.”

¶32

In the present petition, I.A. NO. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing of acquittal appeal shows that reason for said delay is due to departmental procedure which is bona-fide and unintentional but no specific reason shown by the petitioner in the application and in the affidavit.

¶33

Even if this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the instant application, this court do not find any good ground to grant leave to this appeal for the reasons that acquittal of the respondent is based on minute scrutiny of the oral

¶34

and documentary evidence and the learned trial

¶35

¶36

Court finds in paras 48 to 50 that prosecutrix is
married wife of respondent and their marriage was
solemnized on 13.07.2013 and prosecution did not
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on
that the trial Court acquitted the respondent,
thus, this court do not find any ground to condone
the delay in filing the petition and interfere with
the judgment of acquittal.

¶37

Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. and I.A. No. 01/2019 are

¶38

dismissed having no merits.

¶39

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶40

V/-

State of Chhattisgarh v. Varun Kumar Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Varun Kumar Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajkumr Tandi

Vishal Waghatkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharamu Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritesh Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Nageshiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh