The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal against an acquittal. The State sought condonation of delay. The Bench held the State failed to show sufficient cause for the gross delay. The application for condonation was dismissed, and the appeal was barred by limitation.
I.A. No.1/2021 dismissed; Criminal Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:45332-DB CRL.A No. 1525 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by D HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NAMILUGURKI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.S.C.NO.11/2016, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366A, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2021, which is filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay of 254 days in filing this appeal.
absent.
the limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 254 days in filing the appeal.
which is sworn by learned Special Public Prosecutor, I Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Chickaballapur, from which Court the impugned judgment has come out, it is stated that nearly a month after the pronouncement of the judgment, application for certified copy of the judgment was made. Though the copy of the application was filed on 07.08.2019, however, the certified copy of the judgment was delivered only on 28.01.2020. It is thereafter, he took sometime to give his opinion on the judgment, which he gave on 12.02.2020. Then, the time was taken for movement of the file in various sections of the law Department in the Government. Thus, the delay has been caused.
delay said to have occurred is mainly at Government level in the Department of Law, how come the deponent, who is only a Special Public Prosecutor, who might have conducted the case in the Session Judges Court can file an affidavit
explaining the delay, reasons for which is not to his knowledge, except his role, to give his opinion, which he is said to have given on 12.02.2020. After the said date of 12.02.2020 also, the appellant has taken more than three(3) years to file an appeal, which delay has not been explained either by the deponent or by the appellant.
Secondly, the deponent has stated in the affidavit that the certified copy of the judgment was delivered to him on 28.01.2020, whereas, the certified copy shows the date of delivery as 12.11.2019. Thus, even in mentioning the date also the deponent for the reasons best known to him has shown two months later date, so that he can come out with some false excuse to explain the delay. As such, the very conduct of the deponent in explaining the delay being suspicious is not believable. Further, as observed above,
even after he securing the judgment though with delay on his part only and giving opinion by taking some more time there upon, still there is three more years delay in preferring the appeal, which has remained unexplained and no sufficient cause is shown for the said reason.
devoid of merit. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State appellant has shown sufficient cause for a delay of over 254 days in filing a criminal appeal.
Whether the affidavit filed by the Special Public Prosecutor sufficiently explains the delay in preferring the appeal.
Whether the criminal appeal is barred by limitation and should be dismissed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Karnataka represented by Police Inspector, Gudibande Police Station
Narasimhamurthy S/o Balappa
Sri. Adi Narayanappa S/o Thirumalappa
H.B.Prabhakara Swamy
Umesh M Adiga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
