Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Kirana @ Kiran Kumar

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023CRL.A/959/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an extraordinary criminal appeal challenging a Sessions Court acquittal. The Court rejected the State's application for condonation of delay as the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was found insufficient and perfunctory. Consequently, the appeal was barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing criminal appeal rejected; appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

The State of Karnataka Vs Kirana @ Kiran… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB CRL.A No. 959 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2023 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by D HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

KIRANA @ KIRAN KUMAR SON OF DAYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS , RESIDENT AT SOMENAHALLI GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.08.2022 IN S.C.NO.10005/2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPATUR, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 307, 504 AND 506 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB CRL.A No. 959 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In order to see whether I.A.No.1/2023 deserves issuance of notice upon the respondent, we have heard the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader, who is physically present for the appellant.

¶21

Perused I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal.

¶22

In the affidavit accompanying the application, one Sri. L.M. Yelsangikar, who is said to be the Deputy Director of Prosecution has stated that though the impugned judgment was delivered on 25.08.2022 and immediately application was filed for certified copy and the same was received on 09.09.2022, however, the opinion from the concerned Department reached the Director of Prosecution only on 20.01.2023. He has further stated that the opinion was furnished by the Director of Prosecution on 04.02.2023, which the deponent received and he furnished the opinion on 22.02.2023. It is thereafter, the matter went to the Principal Secretary Home Department, who also accorded

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB CRL.A No. 959 of 2023

¶24

permission vide its order dated 03.03.2023. Thus, even according to the deponent, from August, 2022 till the first week of March 2023, the time was consumed only in procedural aspect of obtaining permission. Though the deponent has given a chronology of events that has taken place but the deponent has no where whispered the cause for the delay at each level in several sections of Department.

¶25

Mere mentioning the chronology of events is not explanation of delay showing the sufficient cause for the delay. The time consumed at each of the section in discharging their duty, which resultantly has caused the delay in forwarding the matter to the next concerned section is required to be explained properly, which the deponent has failed to do in the affidavit under consideration. Added to the above, even though the Principle Secretary of Home Department is shown to have accorded its permission to prefer an appeal on 03.03.2023 itself still the office of the Advocate General has taken one more month time to prefer the appeal. Since by that time the file reached its office, the office of the Advocate General was already aware that the time prescribed under law has already been expired to prefer an appeal, it should have expedited the

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB CRL.A No. 959 of 2023

¶27

matter in preferring an appeal at the earliest. However, it also took enormous time of not less than a month in preferring the appeal though it received the sanction by the Government, which was delayed.

¶28

More over, the said delay caused in Advocate General office has not been explained by any competent official from the Advocate General office. Even the deponent, though is not the part of the Advocate General office also has not explained the delay caused in Advocate General Office in preferring the appeal even after obtaining the sanction by the Government.

¶29

Under the above circumstance, it has to be inferred that like in many other matter, the State as an appellant is taking the matter of delay too lightly without giving the necessary attention to which the matter deserves, probably, under the impression that since it is the State appeal, the Court would condone the delay. Having seen several such instances and repeatedly bringing to the notice of the appellant that mere giving chronology of events is not sufficient, unless it explains the delay, we find no improvement in their discharging of work. Under such circumstances, even ordering a notice to the respondent on I.A.No.1/2023 would be of showing an undeserving favour to the appellant in the matter in the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:45331-DB CRL.A No. 959 of 2023

¶32

circumstance of the case. Hence, we do not find any reason

¶33

even to order notice on I.A.No.1/2023 upon the respondent.

¶34

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 stands dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The State of Karnataka v. Kirana @ Kiran Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Kirana @ Kiran Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vinoda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasa Murthy Vs Puttaraju K

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Seenappa

Sri. Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Narasimhamurthy

Chaithanya B Vs State of Karnataka