Arif Qureshi v. Wild Life Inspector

1. The appellant/applicant has filed a criminal leave to appeal for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge/CBI Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 11/2015 titled ‘Arif Qureshi vs. Wild Life Inspector’. The appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 183 days for approaching this Court. The reason given in the application for condonation of delay is that the appellant is a Government of India Department, it has to seek legal opinion; it has to complete certain formalities and accordingly in the instant case, sufficient time was consumed and thereafter the matter was sent to Central Government Standing Counsel, High Court of Delhi, vide letter dated 21.03.2016. 1.[1] The learned Standing counsel after having discussion with the officials of appellant, has prepared the revision petition No. 387/2016 in which sufficient time was consumed, however, vide order dated 23.05.2016, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file the present criminal leave petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.05.2016 has been also extracted in the application as under:- "Crl. Rev. P. 387/2016 & Crl.M.A.8472/16(delay)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1st October 2015, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI (PC Act), Tis Hazari Courts in Crl. Appeal No.1 1/2015 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted.

2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Pol Singh Vs. State of M. P. & Ors in Crl. A. No.1315/2015 (arising out of SLP (CrI.) No.7954/2014) decided on 6th October, 2015, the complainant/victim has to seek leave to appeal while impugning the order of acquittal.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdrawn the revision with liberty to file Criminal Leave Petition. He is also at liberty to pray for condonation of delay in filing leave petition as he was bonafide pursuing his remedy by filing a revision petition against the judgment of acquittal.

4. The revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed”. 1.[2] It has been submitted that the appellant has been following the case with all due diligence and has made its best efforts to file the petition on time. It has been further submitted that delay is bonafide and if the same is not condoned, grave injustice would be caused to the appellant. 1.[3] Reply to this application was filed. In reply to this application, it is mentioned by the respondent that the impugned order was dated 01.10.2015, whereas the revision petition was preferred only on 15.05.2016 and the same was listed on 23.05.2016. The revision petition was withdrawn by the appellant and liberty was granted to file fresh leave to appeal. The said revision petition was preferred after nearly 8 months, and as such, the same was hopelessly barred under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C. The liberty was accorded only to file fresh leave to appeal and the delay was not condoned. The application has been opposed on the ground that the grounds for seeking condonation of delay are flimsy, stereotype and the case for condonation of delay is not made out. 1.[4] It is further submitted by the respondent that the judgments relied upon by the appellant are not relevant in the facts of the case; even the grounds of appeal set out by the appellant are bereft of any substance. The Government of India is required to be very compliant and no leniency with regard to limitation can be accorded to the Government Department, as it gets six months’ time in preferring the appeal whereas others get only two months period for the said purpose. No good cause has been shown for condonation of delay. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal is devoid of any merit; the delay is not bona fide and condonation sought is untenable. So, it has been prayed, that application for condonation of delay may be dismissed.

2. On 15.03.2017, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Crl.M.A. No. 10182/2016 (delav) By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 183 days' in filing the leave petition. The application is opposed by the respondent. Let the petitioner file a better affidavit disclosing the detailed reasons for the delay in filing the leave petition since the averments made in the application are rather sketchy. The affidavit be filed within four weeks. List on 11.07.2017”. 2.[1] In terms thereof, the petitioner has filed an affidavit in compliance of order dated 12.05.2017 wherein it is mentioned as under:-

(i) The order of acquittal was passed by the learned District and

(ii) The petitioner department received certified copy of the order on 03.11.2015;

(iii) Legal opinion from Government Standing Counsel was received on 30.11.2015;

(iv) The proposal application was forwarded to Wild Life Bureau for filing appeal against acquittal on 15.12.2015;

(v) The aforesaid proposal was forwarded to the Ministry of

(vi) After perusing the file, the Ministry of Environment, returned the proposal stating that on 04.01.2016 Central Government’s view was already there. So, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) may directly approach the Central Government Standing Counsel in High Court.

(vii) On 13.01.2016, the petitioner department wrote a letter to

(viii) The Litigation Section (pointed out that the brief) did not carry approval from Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India;

(ix) On 03.02.2016, the Joint Director of Ministry of Environment was requested to forward the proposal for obtaining legal opinion from Ministry of Law & Justice;