ORDER
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Sarkar the learned PP appearing on behalf of the State-applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC along with a Memo of Appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.3.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in G.R. Case No. 77/1999 under Section 498(A)/34 of IPC.
3. The applicant has tried to explain the delay by making averments in the aforesaid application, particularly in paragraph 2 which is extracted below: –
“2. That the delay was caused for following reasons :
(a) That by a judgment dated 21.3.2001 in G.R. Case No.74/99 Under Section 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code was ended in Judgment of acquittal on 21.3.2001 and thereafter on 26.3.2001 application for certified copy thereof was applied and the copy made ready on 17.4.2001 and the last date of filing of the said appeal expired on 11.6.2001.
(b) That the conducting Assistant Public Prosecutor Shri Subrata Roy after obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment of acquittal by a letter dated 24.4.2001 wrote to the Deputy Secretary, Law Department. Government of Tripura, Agartala advising for preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 21.3.2001 passed in G.R.Case No. 74/1999 and 31.5.2001 such proposal was accepted by the Law Department on perusal of the records for preferring an appeal to the Hon’ble High Court.
(c) That thereafter, Law Department, Government of Tripura requested D.M. & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala to see all the relevant document/papers and place before the Ld.P.P. of Hon’ble High Court immediately for preferring an appeal.
(d) That thereafter on 11.6.2001 D.M.& Collector West Tripura placed the records before the Ld.P.P. of Hon’ble High Court for doing the needful for preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal. But unfortunately certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was not placed before the Ld. PP. High Court as such on 14.6.2001 Ld. P.P. once again requested the Law Department to supply certified copy immediately for doing the needful as the certified copy of the impugned Judgment and order was misplaced and after getting this certified copy the matter was again placed before the Ld. P.P. High Court for preferring an appeal on 30.6.2001 and Lt. P.P., High Court actually received the record on 2.7.2001 and thereafter Ld. P.P.. High Court took sometime in drafting, the Memo. of Appeal, leave application along with condonation petition. But unfortunately could not complete the matter for want proper addresses of accused. That 9.7.2001 PP sent the incomplete draft to Law Department on 9.7.2001. That on 27.7.2001
records was again received by the PP, High Court along with proper address of the accused and the matter in completed on 28.7.2001 and the appeal is filed today.”
4. A bare perusal of the above averments advanced on behalf of the State-applicant would clearly establish that the delay of 50 days has not been properly and satisfactorily explained. It candidly appears that the certified copy of the judgment dated 21.3.2001 was ready on 17.4.2001. But the Deputy Secretary of the Law Department, Govt. of Tripura was informed about the said judgment vide communication dated 24.4.2001 made by the engaged A.P.P. with a request for preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 21.3.2001. But seemingly it appears that only on 31.5.2001, after a gap of one month four days the Law Department accepted the proposal on perusal of the records for preferring an appeal before this Court. Thereafter, for the reason best known to the authority the D.M. & Collector. West Tripura was requested by the Law Department, Government of Tripura to see all the relevant documents and papers and to place before the Ld. P.P. of this High Court.
5. The delay occurred during the above mentioned period was not explained by the Government.
6. Thereafter on 11.6.2001 the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura placed the records before the Ld. P.P. of this High Court for preferring the appeal. But the Ld. P.P. not having the certified copy of the impugned judgment again wrote back to the Law Department to furnish him the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 14.6.2001. Against that it is stated that since the certified copy was misplaced, after getting the certified copy the matter was again placed before the Ld. P.P. on 30.6.2001. Ultimately the Ld. P.P. of this High Court received the records on 2.7.2001 and thereafter he prepared the case for filing the same. But due to non-availability of certain instructions i.e. for want of proper address of the accused on 9.7.2001 the Ld. P.P. again sent back the matter to the Law Department and the Law Department returned the entire records only on 27.7.2001 but the period between 9.7.2001 and 27.7.2001 remained unexplained. Ultimately this appeal was filed on 1.8.2001 and in the process there is a delay of 50 days.
7. It goes without saying that the delay so occurred have never been properly and sufficiently explained. It is the settled law that if delay is sufficiently explained the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. There must not be any negligence or laches on the part of the party who seeks condonation for the delay caused due to certain unavoidable circumstances. But in the present case, it seems
that the State-applicant has not taken any steps to explain such delay. It appears from the records that delay is inexcusable which does not warrant any consideration from this court.
8. It is seen that generally State is not taking due care to approach the Court for the redressal of any grievance which may arise from the judicial pronouncements. Generally it seems that they carry an Impression in each and every case that by throwing an application to the Court, without having sufficient cause the delay will be condoned. The State has taken it as granted that court will be always lenient in favour of it being a Government wherein the decision of the Government is a collective and institutional one and they cannot be treated at par with the private individual.
9. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay, petitioner v. Amateur Riders Club. Bombay, respondent reported in 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 602 the Apex Court held as follows:-
“3. This explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay. After the earlier observations of this Court made in several cases in the past, we hoped that the matters might improve. There seems to be nonvisible support for this optimism. There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interest. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any Importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.”
10. In another case of this Court in Union of India and Ors., appellants v. Wood Crafts Products Ltd. and Anr., respondents reported in (2001) 1 GLR 327 a Division Bench of this court held in paragraph 14 as follows:-
” 14. Under the concept of welfare State, in order to promote social justice, it is the bounded duty of the State to protect and preserve the public interest and public fund. Since public exchequer is incurring heavy expenses on the different departments of the State
and its instrumentalities, it is incumbent upon them to be fast and prompt in discharging their duties and in carrying their responsibilities with due diligence. If there is good case on merit and the application for condonation of delay, unintentional or otherwise, filed by the State is not allowed, it is certain that damage will be caused to the public interest and public fund. Unfortunately, the officers of the State and its instrumentalities carry an impression that with each and every case, the delay caused in filing an appeal is bound to be condoned, taking it for granted on the basis of a few decisions where the delay has been condoned considering the facts of those cases where sufficient causes were shown and proved.”
11. In the instant case, it candidly transpires that the Government has approached this court in a routine and casual manner without any proper and effective explanation for such delay in preferring the appeal.
12. Having regard to the above cited decisions, also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on proper scrutiny of the materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the delay of 50 days has not been satisfactorily and sufficiently explained and as such this application does not deserve acceptance. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.