1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 of 2011 Smt. Doura Almeida Coutinho ... Petitioner V e r s u s State Through P.P. ... Respondent Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date: 15 th April, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. 2. The Order under challenge is condoning the delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application to challenge the Order of discharge of the Petitioner in a Criminal case. That Order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2 Sanguem on 12-11-2009. The certified copy of the Judgment was sent to the Range Forest Officer on 20-11-2009. However, the Criminal Revision Application was filed by the Respondent-State in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Margao on 16-08-2010. The Revision was beyond limitation by about 189 days. Therefore, an Application for condonation of delay came to be filed. This Application was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 28/2010. 3. According to Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the cause given is hardly a sufficient cause, much less satisfactory explanation. The only reason mentioned for the delay is of moving of the file from Officer to Officer and from table to table. In several cases such a reason is not termed as satisfactory or reasonable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reliance is placed on a decision reported in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 and in a Judgment in the case of Pundalik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs vs. Executive Engineer 3 Jalgaon Medium Project & Another, reported in 2008(11)JT 596. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another vs. Jose Prazeres de Piedade Pinto and Others reported in 2006(2) B.C.R. 773. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ferreira appearing for the State submitted that the Range Forest Officer, Wildlife could not take any decision and the file had to be forwarded to the Deputy Conservator of Forest The file was forwarded on 10-12-2009 and even at that level, a final decision could not be taken and therefore Office of the Chief Life Warden, Panaji, was moved for obtaining legal opinion. Even for obtaining legal opinion, the file was submitted to the Directorate of Prosecution and then referred to Law Department for necessary approval. The Sanction to file Revision was conveyed on 10-08-2010 and, therefore, the delay in filing the Revision Application. He submitted that there is no case of lack of bonafides. In such circumstances, 4 the view of the Court below need not be disturbed in Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, Revision Application be dismissed. 5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have perused the material on record and all annexures to the instant Application including the impugned Order. My attention is also invited to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking a view that mere movement of file from one table to another is not a ground to condone delay. In the Judgment, in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556, the learned Judge had not recorded the conclusion that the ground is satisfactory for condonation of delay. Further, on merits the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the explanation offered hardly meets the requirement in law. In that case, merely because the Advocate General had lots of Arbitration matters and hence delay had occurred, was the reason set out. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered and set aside 5 an Order condoning the delay. That was the view taken because there was absolutely no explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay. This decision is, therefore, distinguishable. The then Learned Single Judge (Coram: Khandeparkar R.M.S.,J.) found that delay in filing appeal under Land Acquisition Act was because the file was moved from one office to another. Paragraph 3 of the Order states that no particulars and reasons for movement and reasons for delay are given. Thus, in the absence of particulars and relying on the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2276, the Court refused to condone the delay. 6. In the later Supreme Court decision, in the case of Pundalik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project & Another, reported in 2008(11)JT 596 (Supra), the delay was explained by making statements which were found to be factually incorrect. It was mentioned in the Application that the State was unaware as to what was 6 the stand taken by the Applicant before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The State took the stand that it was not aware of the Award also. In paragraph 11, it has been observed that this statement is totally incorrect and from the factual position such an explanation could not be accepted. Therefore, the discretion exercised was faulted and interfered. 7. In this case, it is not disputed that file came to be forwarded to the Range Forest Officer where decision could not be taken. The Range Forest Officer moved the file for obtaining opinion of the higher Authority. So also, the higher Authority was not conversant with law, and it moved the file to the Directorate of Prosecution and then to the Law Department. In such circumstances, the explanation set out in the Application, cannot be said to be incorrect or false. That explanation is neither false nor un-satisfactory. The dates are not disputed so also the reasons. Surely, the Forest Department alone is not the deciding Authority. Merely because there is no elaborate discussion in the impugned 7 Order, the discretion exercised cannot be termed as injudicious or arbitrary. 8. Looking at the grounds and bearing in mind that there are no malafides the discretion exercised does not require any interference in my Revisional Jurisdiction. This Criminal Revision Application being devoid of merits, is dismissed. However, the learned Additional District Judge to whom the Criminal Revision Application will be assigned shall endeavour to dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible and within six months from today. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Ev