Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2023 · High Court · 2025

18.06.2024 and the revisionist has challenged the judgment dated 18.06.2024 only in so far as it decides Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2023 and no revision has been filed against Criminal Appeals No. 56 of 2023 and 57 of 2023.

5. The appellate court came to conclusion that the trial court had held the respondent guilty without proper scrutiny of the evidence and, therefore, the judgment dated 06.10.2023 is not sustainable in law.

6. The appellate court held that the prosecution could not produce any documentary evidence to establish that the respondent has encroached upon the land of the Forest Department. No record was produced mentioning khasra number or gata number of the land in dispute. No report of revenue department was produced. The site plan also does not mention as to which of the accused person had taken possession of which portion of the land. Even this has not been mentioned as to on which gata number shops are constructed and on which gata number house is constructed. No notice issued by the Forest Department for vacating the land in question has been brought on record. PW4 has stated during his cross-examination that he remained posted as Forest Range Officer in Dudhwa Forest for the period of two months and during this period he did not give any notice to the respondent and he did not ask him to vacate the land. The witness said that he did not know as to how many shops are constructed and how many houses are constructed and as to who had constructed the shops and houses. He had not made any inspection of the land in question.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellate court court came to a conclusion that the trial court has held the respondent guilty without proper appreciation of evidence and accordingly the appellate court set aside the order passed by the trial court.

8. The revision has been filed with a delay of 212 days.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that no undue delay has been caused in filing the application.

10. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay mentions administrative actions as the cause for delay in filing the revision. It is stated in the affidavit that an application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment dated 18.06.2024 was moved on 16.07.2024. The information of preparation of the certified copy was put up on the notice board on 19.07.2024, but the copy was received on

28.07.2024. The Government granted sanction for filing the revision on 17.09.2024. After preparation, the revision was filed on 14.04.2025.

11. The aforesaid averment made in the application for condonation of delay is patently false as the country became free from Corona Pandemic long ago. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay also do not give any explanation for the delay of seven months from 17.09.2024 to 16.04.2025.

12. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer: (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the principles of law relating to condonation of delay by stating that: - "12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266: "605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.—The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn.[(2005) 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448])

18.06.2024 and the revisionist has challenged the judgment dated 18.06.2024 only in so far as it decides Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2023 and no revision has been filed against Criminal Appeals No. 56 of 2023 and 57 of 2023.

5. The appellate court came to conclusion that the trial court had held the respondent guilty without proper scrutiny of the evidence and, therefore, the judgment dated 06.10.2023 is not sustainable in law.

6. The appellate court held that the prosecution could not produce any documentary evidence to establish that the respondent has encroached upon the land of the Forest Department. No record was produced mentioning khasra number or gata number of the land in dispute. No report of revenue department was produced. The site plan also does not mention as to which of the accused person had taken possession of which portion of the land. Even this has not been mentioned as to on which gata number shops are constructed and on which gata number house is constructed. No notice issued by the Forest Department for vacating the land in question has been brought on record. PW4 has stated during his cross-examination that he remained posted as Forest Range Officer in Dudhwa Forest for the period of two months and during this period he did not give any notice to the respondent and he did not ask him to vacate the land. The witness said that he did not know as to how many shops are constructed and how many houses are constructed and as to who had constructed the shops and houses. He had not made any inspection of the land in question.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appellate court court came to a conclusion that the trial court has held the respondent guilty without proper appreciation of evidence and accordingly the appellate court set aside the order passed by the trial court.

8. The revision has been filed with a delay of 212 days.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that no undue delay has been caused in filing the application.

10. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay mentions administrative actions as the cause for delay in filing the revision. It is stated in the affidavit that an application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment dated 18.06.2024 was moved on 16.07.2024. The information of preparation of the certified copy was put up on the notice board on 19.07.2024, but the copy was received on

28.07.2024. The Government granted sanction for filing the revision on 17.09.2024. After preparation, the revision was filed on 14.04.2025.

11. The aforesaid averment made in the application for condonation of delay is patently false as the country became free from Corona Pandemic long ago. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay also do not give any explanation for the delay of seven months from 17.09.2024 to 16.04.2025.

12. In Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer: (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the principles of law relating to condonation of delay by stating that: - "12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266: "605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.—The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn.[(2005) 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448])