Orissa High Court
Office Of The Chief Post Master General ... vs . Living on 18 February, 2021
Author: S.K. Mishra
Bench: S.K. Mishra
CRLLP No.61 of 2013
Misc. Case No.52 of 2013 and CRLLP No.61 of 2013
04. 18.02.2021 Both the matters are taken up by Hybrid mode.
Heard Sk. Zafrulla, learned counsel appearing for the
State and Mr. Anupam Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party no.1. None appears for the rest of the opposite
parties.
There is a delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal
as per the Stamp Reporter. The State of Orissa has filed an
application for condonation of delay with an affidavit annexed
thereto sworn by the Inspector In-Charge, Lalbag Police Station,
Dist. Cuttack.
Careful examination of the condonation of delay
petition reveals that the file was entrusted to the Addl. Standing
Counsel for his views on 22.08.2012. He sat over the matter for 5
months and gave his opinion on 31.01.2013 that the appeal
should be filed before this Court. Sk. Zafrulla is unable to explain
why the learned Addl. Standing Counsel took 5 months to give his
opinion on the merits of the appeal against acquittal. Mr. Anupam
Dash, learned counsel also relies upon the reported cases of
Office of The Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living
Media India Ltd. and others, AIR 2012 SC 1506 and the State
of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Bherulal, Special Leave
Petition (C) Diary No.9217 of 2020. In the case of Office of the
Chief Post Master General and others (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the claim on account of impersonal
machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making
several notes cannot be accepted in view of modern technology
being used and available. Law of limitation undoubtedly binds
everybody including the Government. In the case of State of
2
Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
deprecated the casual manner in which the application has been
worded and thereafter the Hon'ble Apex Court has imposed cost of
Rs.25,000/- on the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, we are of
the opinion that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal has
not been properly explained and there is no sufficient reason to
condone the delay.
We have also examined the impugned judgment in the
light of the evidences available on record. It is admitted by the
learned counsel for the State that no overt act has been attributed
to any of the opposite parties against whom the State intends to
file appeal. The learned trial judge was correct in applying the
principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagaban Bux
Singh and another Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 34.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to
condone the delay or grant the leave to appeal to the State to
assail the acquittal of opposite parties.
Accordingly, both the Misc. Case and the CRLLP are
dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
.........................
S.K. Mishra, J.
pcd .........................
Savitri Ratho, J.
3PCD pcd 4 pcd