- (1.) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant application for condonation of delay of 701 days (about 1 year & 11 months) in filing the application under section 378(4) Cr.PC and emanating from the record, is that, having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court acquitted respondent No.1-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under (paras No.16 to 18):- 16. The accused tendered in defence certain documents relating to the civil dispute between the complainant and Parminder Sachdeva. The complainant had made the statement Ex.DA to the police in the other case relating to the obstruction having been caused in police proceedings by certain persons which was contradictory to the facts given by him in the present case. He admitted that he had made a statement in the other case and stated that he had not mentioned therein that on 22.12.2005 he had paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to the present accused. He was confronted with his statement made in the other case which is F.I.R.No.4309 of 23.12.2005 where it was so recorded. In the present case, he stated that he had paid Rs.2000/- on 20.12.2005 and Rs.3000/- on 22.12.2005. He further stated that he had not stated in the other case that the police officials as also Darbari Lal and Sita Ram where all in government vehicles and had reached the place of recovery on signal given by this witness but he was confronted because it was so recorded in Ex.DA. In that case the complainant had stated that on being enquired by the investigating officer, the present accused had taken out ten currency notes of Rs.500/- each from the pocket of his trousers and handed those over to Ram Kishore D.S.P. Whereas in the case in hand his allegations were that part payment had been made two days earlier and also the money was not recovered from the pocket of the trousers but pocket of the jacket of the accused. 17. The complainant stated that Babu Ram had himself handed over the money to the D.S.P. i.e. the money allegedly paid by the complainant to the accused whereas the investigating officer has stated that he had conducted the personal search of the accused and the money was recovered from the pocket of his jacket. 18. It is seen that it is a practice in all cases relating to Prevention of Corruption Act that an Executive Magistrate is joined by the investigating officer by first making an application to the District Magistrate in that regard. No such Gazetted Officer was joined in the present case for which the investigating officer had no explanation. It is noticed that in other cases under the said Act, a Duty Magistrate is joined after the order of the District Magistrate as a part of the raiding party. Though this fact in itself may not be fatal but coupled with other facts and circumstances discussed above, it acquires certain importance and casts a doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
(2.) Although the State of Haryana did not file the appeal, but the petitioner-complainant preferred the present petition for special leave to appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal, invoking the provisions of Section 378(4) Cr.PC alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 701 days in filing the same.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions in this context.;