Shri Braham Prakash v. Shri Rohtash

1. This is a second appeal filed after a delay of 1650 days.

2. The appeal is accompanied by CM APPL. 9148/2024, seeking condonation of delay.

3. The grounds for condonation are contained in paras 3 to 5 of the application, which reads thus:

4. It is obvious that the grounds urged do not make any case for condonation of delay, least of all of a delay as colossal as 1650 days.

5. It is also obvious that this application has been filed in a completely perfunctory manner.

6. The appointment of the first Counsel engaged by the appellant as a Judicial Officer took place prior to the passing of the impugned first appellate order on 30 April 2019. It cannot, therefore, in any manner of speaking, constitute a ground to condone the delay in filing the present second appeal.

7. The second ground urged is that another Counsel engaged by the petitioner has been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor (APP). There are no details of said Counsel, or when he was appointed as APP. Mr. Rawat, on being queried in this regard, is also unaware of these details.

8. Even if it were to be assumed that the appellant’s Counsel was appointed as APP, it can hardly constitute a ground for condonation of delay of 1650 days.

9. The appellant has also been completely remiss in prosecuting the proceedings before the Court below. He never appeared before the learned Trial Court and chose to lead no evidence, resulting in the order dated 23 July 2018 being passed by the learned Trial Court. Before the learned First Appellate Court, the only ground taken was that the appellant’s Counsel had been appointed as a Judicial Officer.

10. The process of law cannot help the indolent, who sleep over their rights.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, no ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is made out.

12. CM 9148/2024 is, therefore, dismissed.