Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.02.2023
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Ram Kishan, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. This order will decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter „Cr.P.C.‟) seeking condonation of delay in filing the present petition.
2. The present petition has been filed against order dated 15.02.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) CBI, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is stated on behalf of petitioner i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that there has been a delay of 119 days in filing the present petition since the case file had to pass through several departments for compliance of statutory requirements resulting into delay of 119 days. It is stated that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and, therefore, the same be condoned.
3. Learned SPP for CBI has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107 to contend that refusal to condone the delay can result in meritorious matter being defeated. Further reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in State of Nagaland v. Lipok to AO 2005 (3) SCC 752 to argue that sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in a justice oriented approach rather than a technical defection of sufficient causes for explaining every days' delay, especially when the appeals are filed by State machinery.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that the delay be not condoned and the petition be dismissed at the outset for delay which was intentional and malafide. It is stated that the present petition has been filed to harass the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was to explain delay of each day which has not been done in the present case and, therefore, the same be dismissed. Attention of this Court in this regard has also been drawn to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 to argue that there is no need to accept that file was kept pending for several months or years without there being any explanation for the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to para 5 of the present application for condonation of delay, wherein the period of delay and the reasons thereof have been explained. The same reads as under: No. Details Dates
1. Impugned order 15.02.2018
2. Certified copy of impugned order applied 16.02.2018
3. Certified copy received 28.02.2018
4. Case processed in branch office 15.06.2018
5. DOP approved recommending filing of of appeal 21.07.2018
6. Instruction given to present counsel for filing appeal 08.08.2018
7. Draft Revision prepared and submitted to the office for approval 11.08.2018
8. Approval of filing obtained 24.09.2018
6. A perusal of the same reveals that after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order on 28.02.2018, and after excluding the period of limitation as per law, the total period of delay in filing present petition is 119 days.
7. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties.
8. The law regarding limitation and condonation of delay has been dealt with under Section 5 and 12 of Limitation Act, 1963 which are reproduced as under:
9. A three-judge bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 9488-9489/2019, while discussing several precedents, summed up the law on condonation of delay as under:
20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even- handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. (Emphasis supplied)
10. In Hemlata Verma v. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.5131/2019, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while setting aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the Commission had refused to condone delay of 207 days, had observed that a liberal approach should have been adopted while dealing with condonation of delay.
11. After hearing arguments of both the sides perusing the material on record, it is observed that the delay in filing present petition was caused on account of some time taken for obtaining necessary approvals from various departments in filing the present petition. The delay in the present case is of 119 days. Being guided by several decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as discussed in preceding paras, this Court is of the opinion that doors to availing appropriate remedy by the petitioner cannot be closed at the threshold on such a ground. As far as contentions on behalf of respondent are concerned, the Hon‟ble Apex Court even in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhurelal (supra) had expressed that reasonable and acceptable explanation and bona fide efforts must be shown to justify the delay in filing of appeals. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the said case was dealing with a situation where the delay in filing of appeal was 663 days, as against 119 days in present case.
12. Undoubtedly, the petitioner should have taken care that the approvals were granted expeditiously keeping in mind the prescribed mandatory period of filing revision petition and a slack approach should not have been adopted. The petitioner i.e. Central Bureau of Investigation must also look into its own working to ensure that the law department itself is aware of the legal position and the law of limitation, and department should not, as a matter of right, adopt a slack approach and cause delay in filing petitions and appeals. There cannot be discrimination or different standards for the purpose of considering “sufficient cause” in relation to the Government Departments, Corporate bodies and Private individuals.
13. Be that as it may, at the same time, this Court is also conscious of several judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court which have time and again reiterated that a pragmatic approach has to be adopted for condonation of delay, and that delay can be condoned if the same is sufficiently explained by stating reasons thereof.
14. Considering the aforesaid, and also keeping in mind the fact that in case the application is not allowed, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner, and its right to impugn the order will be throttled at the threshold, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing present petition.
15. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 23, 2023