Merely Saying Delay Is Due To 'Unforeseen Circumstances' Not Sufficient: Punjab & Haryana HC Rebukes State For Unexplained Delay In Filing Revision Plea

The State has to be accorded some latitude while considering the plea for condonation of delay filed by the State but the same cannot be stretched to an extent that the limitation Act is rendered otiose, said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while refusing to condone delay of 174 days in filing the revision plea.

Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing plea filed by UT Chandigarh seeking condonation of delay of 173 days in filing the revision against acquittal order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Perusing the justification, the Court opined that "very mechanical reason" have been given for the delay, which suggest that, "as if, to seek condonation of delay is a matter of right, regardless of the reasons qua the same."

"The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable. Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for condonation," added the judge.

State counsel argued that the delay was not due to any intentional negligence but was rather an unavoidable administrative and logistical delay.

The circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate & hence delay deserves to be condoned, he added.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that "no reasonable or plausible explanation" has been furnished by the State to condone the delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

Justice Goel found that the application was  "bereft of any specific details/particulars" which may reflect bona fide on part of the State in pursuing its case.

The primary reason given is that the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Director of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, instructed the Public Prosecutor to file the instant revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal, even though the prescribed period for filing such a petition (90 days) has already lapsed and the procedure in filing resulted in the delay of 173 days, it added.

The Court said that the State has failed to provide any concrete explanation or document to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone the significant delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

"The applicant-State has neither shown continuous interest in the case nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay," it observed.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Ms. Simsy Dhir Malhotra, APP. U.T. Chandigarh for the applicant-State

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 340