HC raps state for delay in filing appeals

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 20

Rapping the State of Haryana for considering delayed filing of appeals and revisions a matter of right, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not only deprecated the practice, but also termed as frivolous the pleas taken by it for condoning the delay.

Justice Ramendra Jain asserted that the State machinery, for the past two or three decades, had been thinking that it had the fundamental right to file appeal or revision delayed and to get the delay condoned whatsoever might be the reason.

It was a well-settled proposition of law that each day’s delay was required to be explained in a mathematical manner. “Much water has already flown. Now the time has come to deprecate and reject such type of frivolous pleas taken in routine to abuse the process of law inasmuch as every State Government is the biggest litigant in the country,” Justice Jain asserted.

The assertion came on a petition by the State of Haryana against Nalin Goel and another petitioner. The petition was accompanied by an application seeking the condonation of 143 days delay in filing the revision.

Justice Jain observed that the contents of the plea for the condonation of delay were vague, following which a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, vide order dated April 17, last year, directed the State to file a fresh application.

It was asked to furnish better particulars, indicating the circumstances culminating in the filing of the application for condoning the delay. It was also asked to specify if there was any dereliction of duty by any State official. It then filed the plea, claiming “procedural delay”.

“Since no cogent reason or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-State for condonation of delay of 143 days in filing the revision, the application is dismissed,” Justice Jain added.

The case has its genesis in an FIR registered at the Thanesar police station in February 1998. The accused in the case were booked and charge-sheeted under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 382 of the IPC for assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty and other offences. They were accused of abusing and manhandling an income tax party and snatching the record.

They were discharged in August, 2000, by the trial court on account of the non-compliance of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the accused.

The police presented another “final report”, again without complying with the provisions of the Code. The trial court, vide judgment dated May 17, 2011, acquitted the respondents. Aggrieved, the State preferred appeal, but remained unsuccessful.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Jain added that there was no illegality or perversity in the judgments of both courts below.