news details |
|
|
| DB takes serious note for filling delayed appeals | | ‘Asks Com/Secy Law, SSP Poonch to appear in person’ | |
JAMMU, MAY 14
Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice JP Singh, in an appeal filed by the state in a acquittal of murder case, took serious note for filling the appeal after a year and asked Commissioner/Secretary Law and SSP Poonch to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
This significant order was passed in an appeal filed by the state against the judgment of Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch, whereby the Court acquitted the accused Naseer Ahmed on November 1, 2004 from the charges u/s 302/ 307 r/w section 120-B RPC. The state has filed this appeal after a delay of 337 days. The main appeal, a miscellaneous petition (Cond) No 2/2006 for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit of Mr. DS Jamwal, the SSP Poonch December 20, 2005, ground taken for condonation of delay is that sanction from Law Department was received on July 12, 2005 and after receiving the sanction records were called from the concerned office along with the application and an affidavit of SSP Poonch.
Division Bench, after considering the file, observed that it is neither mentioned in the application nor in the affidavit on which date the certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained. It is also not made clear as on which date the certified copy was sent to the Law Department. As per averments made in the application, the Government Advocate has received the sanction from the Law Department on July 12, 2005. This all shows that all this process consumed more than eight months. The explanation tendered is not appealing at all and it appears that the matter had been delayed at different stages by each concerned official. The affidavit of SSP Poonch also does not lead Court anywhere. Facts are that criminal appeals against the acquittal at the state level are being handled very casually and that is the reason that huge delay is being caused in filling the appeals. DB took serious note of it and said that most of the state appeals are filed after a considerable delay which is not to be condoned as a matter of right. Legally each delay has to be explained.
DB further observed that before this Court takes an adverse view against any erring official, the DB felt it necessity of calling the Commissioner/ Secretary Law Department and SSP Poonch to make their position clear before the Court at least in this case. With these observations Court asked the Com/Secy Law and SSP Poonch to appear in person in the Court on the next date of hearing, so that in future Com/Secy Law will be in a better position to take necessary steps in this regard and this would certainly help in advancement of criminal justice system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
