2025:HHC:21197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2502 of 2023 Reserved on: 21.06.2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 State of H.P. ....Applicant/appellant. Versus Subhash Chand ...Non-applicant/Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Applicant/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. For the non-applicant/ Respondent : Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocate, vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The State of H.P. has filed the present application for condonation of 200 days’ delay in filing the appeal . It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied on 03.09.2022, which was attested on 26.09.2022 and was delivered on 27.09.2022. Thereafter the matter was examined by the learned District Attorney/Public Prosecutor, Kangra, H.P. and was sent to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. P a g e | 2 2025:HHC:21197 the Additional Chief Secretary Home to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for taking a final decision. It was received in the Home Department on 31.10.2022 and was diarised on 02.11.2022. The case was referred to the Law Department on 09.11.2022, which returned the file with the observation that the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the charge-sheet, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, and the evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court were not annexed. District Magistrate, Kangra, H.P. was requested to send the complete record vide letter dated 14.11.2022. The record was received on 09.12.2022, and the matter was referred to the Law Department. The Law Department once again returned the record on 19.12.2022 with the observation that judgment of the learned Trial Court, charge-sheet, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court were not annexed. District Magistrate, Kangra, H.P. was requested to the send the complete record vide letter dated 22.12.2022 and a reminder dated 26.05.2023. The relevant record was received on 19.06.2023 and diarised on 21.06.2023. The case was referred to the Law Department on 23.06.2023. The Law Department returned the record on 30.06.2023 with the P a g e | 3 2025:HHC:21197 observation that the appeal should be filed. The matter was submitted to the competent authority on 01.07.2023 for consideration and taking apt decision. The Competent Authority decided on the same day that the appeal should be preferred before this Court. This led to a delay of 200 days. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that a right has accrued in favour of respondent which should not be taken away. No satisfactory explanation was provided by the State, and the Government is bound by the Limitation Act as anybody else; therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. This Court framed the following issues on 22.08.2024: 1. Whether there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay? OPP 2. Relief. 4. The State was called upon to produce the evidence, but no evidence was produced. Hence, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 16.05.2025. 5. I have heard Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the applicant/State and Ms. Kavita Kajal, learned counsel representing the respondent. P a g e | 4 2025:HHC:21197 6. Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State, submitted that the State has provided a valid explanation for the delay. The State has to process the file at various levels, and the delay in processing the file is bound to occur. The State should be given some leeway while condoning the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. 7. Ms. Kavita Kajal, learned counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the State has to provide a valid explanation before seeking condonation, and its case should not be treated differently from the case of a private citizen. She relied upon the judgment of this Court in HRTC and another. vs Janak Raj, CMP(M) No.857 of 202, decided on 18.12.2023 in support of her submission. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Issue No.1. 9. The State did not lead any evidence to prove the averments made by it; therefore, there is no evidence in support of the plea taken by the State. It was rightly submitted on behalf of P a g e | 5 2025:HHC:21197 the respondent that the State cannot claim differential treatment while claiming condonation of delay. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 117: (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 101: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 84: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849 that the government can be given some leeway while condoning the delay but it cannot seek condonation without a sufficient cause. It was observed at page 656: “2. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counselling to the Government and government authorities has fallen on deaf ears, i.e. the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose to ignore the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the statutes prescribed. 3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji [LAO v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107]]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649] wherein the Court P a g e | 6 2025:HHC:21197 observed as under : (Postmaster General case [Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649], SCC pp. 573-74, paras 27-30) “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of P a g e | 7 2025:HHC:21197 delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay, except mentioning various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” Eight years hence, the judgment is still unheeded!” 10. A similar view was taken by this Court in HRTC & another (supra). 11. Even if the averments made in the application are considered, these are highly vague. It was asserted that the Law Department raised an objection on 09.11.2022 that the record was incomplete as the charge-sheet, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court were not sent to the Law Department. The record was sought from the District Magistrate, Kangra, H.P. and the matter was again submitted to the Law Department, however, the Law Department again wrote on 19.12.2022 that the judgment of the learned Trial Court, charge-sheet, statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court were missing. There is no P a g e | 8 2025:HHC:21197 explanation as to how the same documents were found missing when the District Magistrate, Kangra, H.P., was asked to submit a complete record. Further, the application states that a letter was written on 22.12.2022, and the reminder was issued on 26.05.2023. There is no explanation as to what happened in the office of the District Magistrate, Kangra, H.P., during the five months. Thus, the averments made in the application clearly show that the State was not pursuing the matter with due diligence. It was transmitting the incomplete record, despite the objections raised by the Law Department. No one was looking at the communication received from the Home Department, and it appears that the matter remained pending without any attention from anyone. These circumstances do not show the exercise of any due diligence; rather, they show that the matter was being taken up casually at all levels. Therefore, the plea taken by the applicant/State that it was diligent and was processing the matter is not acceptable. Relief 12. In view of the above, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. P a g e | 9 2025:HHC:21197 Criminal Appeal No. ____2024 (CR.AST No.7143 of 2023) 13. Since the application bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2502 of 2023 for condonation of delay has been dismissed; therefore, the proposed appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 04th July 2025. (ravinder)