HC virtually raps Punjab for ‘deliberate attempt’ to drag acquitted accused into litigation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped the State of Punjab for deliberate attempt to unnecessarily entangle the accused in prolonged litigation, while dismissing its plea seeking condonation of about eight-month delay in filing an appeal against his acquittal under the Excise Act.

The case before Justice Sumeet Goel’s Bench has its genesis in an FIR registered on June 10, 2022, at Guruharsahai police station in Ferozepur against accused for offences punishable under the provisions of the Excise Act. The Guruharsahai Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused on February 1, 2024. The State then moved the High Court seeking to challenge the acquittal by filing a delayed appeal, triggering the present proceedings.

Scrutinising the State’s application seeking condonation of the 242-day delay, Justice Goel asserted the averments clearly showed the absence of reasonable or plausible justification. “The present application, apart from being bereft of specific details or particulars that may reflect bona fides on the part of the applicant-State in pursuing its case, rather indicates a deliberate attempt to unnecessarily entangle the respondents-accused in prolonged litigation,” the court observed.

Justice Goel observed the applicant-State failed to provide any concrete explanation or documentary proof to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. “The State had failed to provide any plausible explanation or supporting documents to justify its delayed action. No cause, much less sufficient cause as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone such a significant delay. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable,” the Court noted.

Justice Goel also admonished the State for relying on vague references to procedural or unforeseen circumstances without details or evidence. “Merely attributing it to procedural or unforeseen circumstances, without supporting details or evidence, falls short of the legal threshold for condonation,” the Bench asserted.

Justice Goel added that the explanation furnished by the State for the delay was neither reasonable, satisfactory, nor proper. “The applicant-State has neither exhibited continuous diligence in the matter nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could reasonably explain such an extensive delay. The explanation contained in the application is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation,” the court observed.

Following the inordinate delay and the lack of diligence on the State’s part, the High Court dismissed both the application seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying main appeal challenging the acquittal. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.