Sluggishness Intolerable: Calcutta High Court Slams CBI's Conduct For Failing To File Appeal Within Limitation Period

The Calcutta High Court has heavily criticized the conduct of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its Director for failing to file an appeal within the statutory period of limitation.

A single bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, in a plea for condonation of delay in filing the special leave to appeal, allowed delayed filing in the interest of justice and held:

I am astounded by the conduct of the CBI in such important matters how such delay could take place. The CBI ought to have been careful in filing the special leave (to appeal) within the period of limitation. CBI ought to be guided by its latest updated manual. In the instant case, sluggishness on its part is intolerable. Director of CBI being responsible should look into the matter and saddle the responsibility on a person concerned. The Director CBI cannot escape the responsibility for delay in such cases which is to be termed as deliberate one, which is intolerable. 

At the same time, I am not obliterate to note that the sufficiency of cause has to be judged in a pragmatic manner to advance the cause of justice...I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing special leave to appeal, it added.

The CBI had preferred the present appeal against the acquittal order of six accused on an allegation of fraud against Canara Bank for an amount of Rs 2.19 crores in 2000, under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, along with an application for condonation of delay by 1452 days, or almost 4 years.

The question before the Cout was whether sufficient cause had been shown for the delay by the CBI in order it to be condoned.

It was submitted by the CBI that the delay of four years was due to the fact that the procedure to obtain permission from the higher authority involved a long, bureaucratic process, and that during the COVID lockdown, these actions could not be carried out smoothly, especially because the office of the Additional Solicitor General remained vacant for almost ten months.

It was submitted that the delay may be condoned within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Counsel for the opposite party argued that the delay could not be condoned due to the casual approach of the investigation agency, there was no sufficient cause, and the explanation given was vague.

It was submitted that bureaucratic red tape cannot be used as an excuse by a premier institution such as the CBI, in view of modern technology at their disposal.

Upon hearing the arguments, the court opined that government departments, such as the CBI are under a special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment, and that condonation of delay was an exception and cannot be used as an anticipated benefit.

Court held that the arguments relied on by the CBI to justify the almost four-year delay were not convincing and that the authorities should have been more diligent regarding the conduct of the proceedings.

However, in the interest of justice, it condoned the delay and allowed the filing of the appeal.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 42

Case: CBI v Binod Kr Maheshwari

Case No: CRMSPL 50 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order