IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.887 of 2002 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus SRI RAMAKANT SINGH & ORS ----------- 17 22.8.2008 This application has been filed against the order dated 21.9.2000 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Criminal Revision no.280/99 thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 27.7.1999 passed by Sri Alok Raj, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra passed in Trial no. 22/99. The opposite parties were accused in the aforesaid trial registered at the instance of Excise Department. They filed a petition dated 23.4.1996 for discharge and the same was rejected by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order set aside the order of rejection of petition filed by opposite parties and discharged the accused opposite parties. The State of Bihar has preferred this revision against the impugned order. It has been filed after lapse of one year and eleven months of the order. I.A.No.1023 of 2002 has also been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay which is still pending. Vide order dated 1.10.2002 the limitation petition was directed to be considered at the time of admission of revision application. Heard learned counsel for both parties. There shall be no gainsaying that this application for revision is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The period for filing - 2 - of revision is ninety days but it has been filed after lapse of more than one and half years of limitation. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides extension of period of limitation provided the petitioner/appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the application/appeal within prescribed period. However, there is different between individual and State. Certain amount of latitude is permissible to the State. In Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it appears that in order to cover up the inordinate delay in filing the revision application the lame excuses have been made, Even if averment made in paragraph 3 of Interlocutory Application that the department came to know about the order on 22.12.2001 is taken to be true, there cannot be any justification to sit over the order and prefer this revision after lapse of more than eight months. It is one of the glaring examples how the officers of the State have acted in irresponsible manner. It cannot be considered as bonafide lapse. This matter has been considered by this Court in case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Puran Chandra Mahto reported in AIR 1998 Patna 171 . In paragraphs 10 and 15 it has been observed as follows; “Para 10- No doubt, if the delay is caused simply on account of red-tapism, some amount of latitude deserved to be granted; but, if unexplained delay is caused by the State Officers, in our opinion, no indulgence deserves to be shown for excusing the inordinate delay. The ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (Supra) does not show that in all cases even if where inordinate delay has not been explained successfully the period of limitation is to be extended always in State Appeals.” - 3 - Para 15- In this context it will not be out of place to mention here that liberal view shown by he Courts in this regard is being misunderstood by the Government officers and it appears that under this mistaken notion they labour that a vested right has been conferred upon them by judicial pronouncement as if the law of limitation has no application to the State Government and that whenever delayed appeal would be filed, taking a liberal view, as of right, the delay would be condoned. That is why as a result of liberal view taken by the Court, the Government officers have become more complacent.” Thus, taking into account of law as well as grounds stated by the State in order to explain the delay, this Court is of the view that this revision application is hopelessly barred by limitation. The State does not deserve the condonation of delay. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No.1023 of 2003 is hereby rejected. So far the merit of the case is concerned, learned counsel for opposite party has rightly contended that the alleged occurrence actually comes within the provision of Excise Act and the Excise Department deliberately filed this case under the provision of Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also discussed all aspects of the case and has rightly discharged the opposite parties as there was no legal material against them. Accordingly, the revision application is also dismissed at the stage of admission itself. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)