The State sought leave to appeal against acquittal under the POCSO Act with an application to condone 969 days' delay in filing. Applying Supreme Court precedent on governmental delay and excluding the Covid period, the High Court found the explanation of file movement insufficient.
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.
$~1
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocate.
versus
AMIT KUMAR ALIAS SITU .....Respondent Through: Mr. U.S. Khatar, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
O R D E R
% 09.07.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:05:30
perusal of the application would reveal that the learned APP and the Director, Prosecution agreed that the case was not fit for appeal. However, finally, the Assistant Legal Advisor of the Law department disagreed and hence, the matter went to the Hon’ble Lt. Governor and the appeal was decided to be filed. The total condonation of delay sought is for a period of 969 days. 4. A perusal of the Supreme Court judgment in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.,(2012) 3 SCC 563 shows that the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities have to give reasonable and just explanation for the delay, mere explanation that the file was pending at a certain stage will not be acceptable as a cogent reason. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below:
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(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 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 why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
28. 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 bona fides, 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
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:05:30
everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the g overnment bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide 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 for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. 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. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:05:30
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
AMIT SHARMA, J.
JULY 9, 2024 bsr/ PC/ks
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 07:05:30
1 issue framed by the court
Should the 969-day delay in filing the State's leave to appeal against a POCSO acquittal be condoned?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.Relied on¶4
(2012) 3 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of LimitationRelied on¶6
[Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Order dated 10th January, 2022]
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd.Relied on¶6
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 215) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of GNCTD
Amit Kumar alias Situ
Prathiba M. Singh
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
