The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER r.A.NO.1 0F 2015 (CRL.A.M.P.NO .1455 0F 2015) IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 193 0F 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 't93 OF 2 o25 . . 9tillqt-Appeal filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.p.C., against the Judgment dated 28-02-2014 passed in C.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file bf the Court 6f tne Ill Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Between: The State of Telangana, State through SpE/CBliHyderabad. AND ... Petitioner/Complainant in CRLA and l.A.No.1 of 201S

1. Kota Jaya Sankalam, S/o. K Venkateshwarlu, aged 60 years, Former Branch Manger, Andhra Bank, I\rl.G.Road Branch, Secunderabjd, R/o. 3_6-439/.1 , Street No. 5, Himayatnagar, Hyderaabad_

2. R. Satyanarayana, S/o Ravineni Gangaram, aged 50 years, Director, M/s. 3ental Drugs_(P) Ltd., C/o. Tirumala Nursing Home, A/etpally, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, A. P. 3 S A Reddy, S/o. Late Singireddy Narasimha' Reddy, aoed 45 years. prop. lV1/s. PharmaLink, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.16-1 1-4.1ilt, NearAndat Nilaybm, lVlusarambagh, Hyderabad.

4. Ivl.A.Baari, S/o. M.A.Razzak, aged 52 years, R/o. 13-5-146, Opp. Lane to lappachabutra Police Station, near Balaji Temple, Karwan Stiau (Faiz Chaman), Hyderabad. ( Since the court below convicted the 1't Respondent, he is not necessary party to this appeal) .Respondents/Accused in CRLA and I.A.No.1 of 2O1S l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLAMP. NO: 1455 OF 2015) Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 524 days in filing the Criminal Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Srinivas Kapatia ( SPL p p FOR CBI ) Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri K R K V Prasad Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri Dhulipalla V A S Ravi Prasad The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER I.A.NO.1OF 2015 ICRL,A.M.P.NO. 1455 0F 20151 IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.I 93 0F 2025 COMMOIY JUDGMENT: The State has preferred the present Appeal seeking condonation of delay of 524 days in fiIing the Criminal Appeal. 2. Affidavit is filed by the Inspector of police along wit]. petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. According to the alfidavit, the judgment was passed on 03.O3.2014 and copy was made ready on 12.03.2014. There was communication in between Offrcers in CBI both at Hyderabad and Delhi about the judgment. After due consideration, on 2Z.OS.2O 14, recommendation was made by the Deputy Legal Advisor recommending to file Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment which was approved by the Secretar5r, Law & Justice and communicated on 2g.OS.2Ol4. A copy of the judgment and necessar5r papers were forwarded to the Standing counsel for fi1ing Criminal appeal through a letter in the month of June 2014 itself, however, the Appeal was filed on 29.O9.2015.

3. Learned counsel appearing for CBI relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sheo Raj Singh (deceasedt through Legal Representatives And Othersr wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as under:- I (2023) 10 scc 531 I ,1 2 "Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court's decision to condone the delay on account ofthe first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error . warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such art exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a Iiberal and justice-oriented aBproach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of govemmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of tJle competing interests."

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh And Others v. Bherulalz, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does 'z (2020) 10 scc 654 3 not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay. 6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as "certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtail a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing couid be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal' It is to complete this formality and save the skin of oflicers who may be at default that such a process is followed' We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement' The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the frles and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. \

5. No reasons are given as to why the Appeal was not filed in between June 2O14 and' 28.09.2015 for about 15 months when the file was handed over to the Standing counsel, CBI, Hyderabad' The entire process of approval for lodging the Appeal was complete and papers were handed over in the month of June 2014 itself to the Standing counsel. From June 20 14 till fiting of the Appeal i'e' ' 4

28.09.2015 for i5 months, the reasons for not filing the Appeal are not stated. A liberal and justice oriented approach by Courts and also to take a pragmatic view in appropriate cases, as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Siagh,s case ca, be followed only when reasons cited for delay are convincing. There is _no whisper in the affidavit about the 15 months period when the file was with the Standing counsel and what caused the delay. Unless the said delay is explained convincingly or any acceptable reasons are given, the question of coming to the rescue of the appellant/CBl does not arise. Though leeway could be provided to the State on account of its scheme of functioning, however, when the entire process of getting sanction was complete by June, 2014, the file lying with the Standing counsel for 15 months cannot be a ground to condone the delay.

6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2O1S filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is a-lso disrnissed. In view of the judgment reported in Sycrm Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshs, the Registry is directed to number the appeal. Miscellaneous a.pplications pendin if an , sha-ll stald dismissed. /,. }Loft<O ALDce"l, qty Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEF'UTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// / To, SECTION OFFICER r) Hyderabad [OUT]

1. The lll Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad 2. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at 3. One CC to Sri K R K V prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 1 9n" CC to Sri Dhutipaila V A S Ravi prasid, Adv'ocate tOpUC] 5. Two CD Copies k ADK/DL -!l HIGH COUR-T DATED:0310112025 COMMON JUDGMENT |.A.NO.1 OF 2015 (CRL.A.M.p.NO.1455 OF 2015) IN/AND CRLA.No.193 of 2025 1 $e sTAf €' ( q 29 APn 2U6 , o ST',1TCH DISMISSINGTHE CRLA AND l.A.No.1 of Z01S 6(d?a& Xt'e' \a\'