The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.37 of 2006 State of Orissa Susama Panda -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. J. Katikia, AGA …. Opposite Party None CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 21.07.2022 Misc. Case No.32 of 2006 06. 1.This is an application to condone the delay of 589 days in filing the Criminal Leave Petition to Appeal (CRLLP). 2. The impugned judgment acquitting the Opposite Party was passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rourkela on 13th May, 2004 in Sessions Trial No.99/38 of 2002. The present CRLLP was filed on 23rd March, 2006. The explanation offered in this application is that after receipt of the judgment, it was placed before the Assistant Public Prosecution on 22nd August, 2005 i.e. more than one year and three months for offering his views. This delay of one year and three months is not explained. After receiving opinion on 25th August 2005, it was sent to the office of the Advocate General only on 3rd January 2006, which is again a delay of almost four months. This again is not explained. Apparently, an endorsement was made by the Advocate General on Page 1 of 7 the file to one Shri P.K. Mohanty for his legal opinion. That legal opinion was given on 16th January, 2006. Ultimately, the petition was filed only on 23rd March, 2006. 3. It is clear that there is an unexplained delay at every stage and the delay is only due to administrative reasons. 4. The Supreme Court has made it clear in a series of judgments, including the decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849, that there have to be proper and convincing reasons for the delay in the State or its entities filing appeals or petitions. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed as under: if "2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the 2 Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue is so that the Government machinery inefficient filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed. incapable and of 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater Page 2 of 7