The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom (HC) has dismissed an enchantment in opposition to the acquittal of an individual in a medication case filed by Punjab after 1600 days. The statutory requirement for this as per the Code of Legal Process (CrPC) is 2 months after the acquittal order handed by the trial courtroom.

A division bench of the Excessive Courtroom comprising Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri noticed that the State has proceeded with ease as if it has been positioned on a greater pedestal than the bizarre litigant and, subsequently, some preferential remedy to condone the delay. rights or treatments. “Nonetheless, such precedents don’t help the view {that a} completely different formulation must be adopted within the affairs of the State,” the bench mentioned.

The Particular Courtroom, Bathinda on April 18, 2015 had handed the acquittal within the FIR registered in opposition to one Nath Singh on Could 2, 2007 within the medicine seizure case.

The federal government’s rationalization earlier than the Excessive Courtroom was that an software to summon three witnesses had been rejected by the trial courtroom which was challenged earlier than the Excessive Courtroom. Nonetheless, within the meantime the trial courtroom pronounced the case and the person was acquitted. The enchantment on the problem of summoning three witnesses was withdrawn from the HC in September 2017 because it had turn out to be infructuous. Thereafter, the file was positioned earlier than the Legislation Officer who was of the opinion in December 2017 that it was a match case for submitting an enchantment. The file was despatched from the Advocate Common’s workplace to the Bathinda District Lawyer in February 2018. The matter then went to the Bathinda Senior Superintendent of Police for approval, which was lastly obtained in November 2018. The sanction letter was then despatched to the Advocate Common’s workplace in November 2018 and the matter was put up for overview and enchantment in July 2019. Filed in February 2020. It was additionally claimed that motion was taken in opposition to the erring officer who stored the file pending with him for seven months between July 2019 and February 2020.

Nonetheless, the courtroom noticed that the enchantment has been filed after a delay of 1,671 days. The courtroom disagreed with the explanations given to justify the delay in submitting.

“… a studying of the dates reveals that the delay has not occurred at one time, however on a number of events,” the bench mentioned. To file felony revision earlier than the Excessive Courtroom, which was in the end dismissed as withdrawn.

Regardless of receiving an opinion in December 2017, the sanction couldn’t be obtained until November 2018 and after receiving the identical, the matter was put up for overview in July 2019 itself. “Thus, to return again now that there was a delay on the a part of a delinquent officer for 7 months when the enchantment was filed in February, 2020, wouldn’t be a enough trigger for condoning the extreme delay,” the bench mentioned. That the Courtroom was of the opinion that there was no cause to condone the extreme delay and dismissed the petition.




Supply hyperlink