- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This Court is regularly observing that several Special Appeals are being placed in the list as 'special Appeal Defective'. On enquiry we have come to know that whenever Special Appeals are filed with application for condonation of delay, such appeals are normally being treated as 'special Appeal Defective' in the list. Upon going through the records of the individual cases, we find that most of such appeals are filed by the State in the routine manner on some pretext or other. This gives us the impression whether latitude is to be shown to the appellant as because it is a State as a matter of course without verifying the sufficiency of the cause applicable to them or we shall shut our eyes, as because State is not similarly placed with an individual. Against this background we have to consider the individual applications.
(2.) IN further, the present policy of the Government, either Union or the State is that there should be sufficient curtailment of red-tapism to go ahead. The procedures are getting liberalized in respect of all activities in connection with public interest. If it is so, why the same principle will not be adopted in case of Court proceedings when pendency of litigations are piling up regularly, is unknown to the Court. Court is anxious about the circumstances. Defective appeals are also appeals so far as number of pendency is concerned. Moreover, at the time of consideration of individual cases on the part of the State, not being an individual, we have to visualize what public interest will be subserved and whether any third party interest will be affected by allowing such application or not. There is no doubt that law of limitation is made for all. But sufficiency of the cause is the source of information to the Court to come to a conclusion that by such sufficiency minimum latitude will be shown to the State or the Union differentiating them from individuals. But that does not necessarily mean that an unfettered latitude will be given to the State to file appeal/s as and when it requires taking the advantage of legal interpretations. Legal interpretations cannot travel beyond the law. Legal interpretations must have to be considered on the individual factual position and such individual position alone gives an indication to the mind of Court of law, whether it will pass an affirmative order or negative order. We are aware that we should not make any pedantic approach but liberal approach, how many approach is dependable upon the facts and circumstances of individual cases. No routine appeal by the State taking the advantage of the situation can be allowed to be sustained. Whenever a State is faced with an order it compels the State to give utmost importance to consider whether appeal should be filed or not. Obtaining permission from the appropriate authority to prefer an appeal is not a luxury at the cost of public exchequer at any time but at the time of genuine need. If so, no delay should be condoned which appears to be done intentionally. State cannot sit tight over the matter only on the ground of red-tapism giving a secondary importance to the process of Court of law. Court of law is not only out of generosity but also in public interest giving minimum possible latitude to the individual cases. That cannot be treated as weakness of the Court of law. This is a high time to consider the appeals of the State from this angle. It is to be remembered latitude can only be given to the State Authorities, if it is genuinely prevented from filing the appeal. Before our further discussion with regard to the factual background of the following individual cases, we have to say that learned Chief Standing Counsel wanted to satisfy the Court for condoning the delay on the strength of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) JIC 92 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 2191, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. , based on various earlier judgments, which are dealt with therein. Hence, no de novo discussion is necessary. Therefore, let us take note of the factual background therein. Factually the question of appeal arose there from a judgment of acquittal in a criminal matter to obtain a leave to prefer an appeal. Such judgment was pronounced on 18th December, 2002. Copy of the order was received by the concerned department on 15th January, 2003 without wasting any time on the same day, the relevant documents and papers were put up for necessary action before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Head-quarters), Nagaland. On the next date, the said Deputy Inspector General considered the matter and forwarded the file for consideration to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (M and P), Nagaland. Unfortunately the whole file alongwith note sheet were found missing from the office and could not be traced in spite of best efforts made by the department. Finally it was traced on 15th March, 2003 and the file was put up for necessary orders by the Additional Director General of Police (Headquarter) Nagaland. The said officer opined that an appeal was to be filed on 26th March, 2003, and finally an appeal was filed after appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. When it was found that no appeal had been filed, the Secretary to the Department of Law and Justice, Government of Nagaland got in touch with the Additional Advocate General, Gauhati High Court regarding the filing of the appeal and in fact the appeal was filed on 14th May, 2003. It is of relevance to note that in the application for condonation of delay it was clearly noted that when directions were given to reconstruct the file, missing file, suddenly appeared in the office of Director General of Police, Nagaland. Against this background the Supreme Court thought it fit that legal principles are applicable in the case of condonation of delay on the part of the State by condoning the delay of 57 days.
(3.) THEREFORE, the prayer of condonation of delay on the part of the State will have to be based on genuine ground not as a matter of course, nor at the sweet will of the State taking the advantage of the Court's generosity. Latitude is to be given when Court will come to the conclusion on the factual background that in such case a latitude is required to be given. From the factual background of the case before the Supreme Court, it appears that the prosecution was eager to test the order of acquittal by the Appellate Court. Another special fact has been noticed by the Supreme Court that the file was missing but was surprisingly available when the prosecution thought to reconstruct it. THEREFORE, the Court was guided by such factor. Importance of the merit and genuinely are also guiding factors for the Court to determine the necessity of condonation of delay.;