1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.517/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. /2011 ( Central Bureau of Investigation, through SP, CBI, ACB, Nagpur ..Vs.. Shri Ramanuj Tripathi Head Jamadar, Security Vishveswraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT), Nagpur ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, Adv. for applicant (CBI). Mr. U.A. Gosawi, Adv. respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 7.12.2011. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing appeal against the order of acquittal dated 9th of September 2010 passed by Special Judge (CBI), Nagpur in Special Case No.1/2004. 2. The respondent/accused Head Jamadar, Security Department, Vishveswraya National Institute of Technology (VNIT), Nagpur allegedly demanded bribe of `5,000/- so that the agreement of security between private security agency and the V.N.I.T. continues. 3. The chronology of the events is as follows: On 9/9/2010 the judgment was delivered. 2 On 13/9/2010 the certified copy was applied for. On 24/9/2010 the certified copy was collected. On 1/10/2010 the proposal was forwarded to Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. On 14/10/2010 the comments of Joint Director were forwarded to Special Director C.B.I. New Delhi. On 18/10/2010 Special Director C.B.I. sent the case papers to Director of Prosecution. On 27/10/2010 the Special Directors C.B.I. offered its comment and on 28/10/2010 returned the papers to C.B.I., A.C.B. Zone-1 Mumbai. On 9/11/2010 S.P., C.B.I. received the case papers and forwarded them to the Special Counsel for drafting the appeal memo. On 12/12/2010 the appeal memo was drafted and sent to S.P., C.B.I. and in turn S.P., C.B.I. sent it to Joint Director, C.B.I. Mumbai for approval. Some additional documents were sent by Nagpur office to Mumbai office on 14/12/2010 and 16/12/2010. On 29/12/2010 C.B.I. Mumbai dispatched the case papers to Director (Vigilance) Department of Personal & 3 Training, New Delhi seeking approval to file an appeal. On 31/1/2011 few more documents were sent by Nagpur office to Joint Director A.C.B. Mumbai. Again the comments were sent to Director(Vigilance) D.P.T., New Delhi on 15/2/2011. On 8/3/2011 the Director (Vigilance) D.P.T., New Delhi recommended to Joint Director Mumbai for grant of approval. On 21/6/2011 S.P., C.B.I., Nagpur dispatched the letter of approval which was received in the office of Special Counsel C.B.I. on 23/6/2011. Again on 15/7/2011 the final approval was sent by Department of Personal and Training to Joint Director, C.B.I., Nagpur which was received by the latter on 25/7/2011. On 8th of August 2011 the appeal came to be filed. 4. The aforesaid chronology of the events depict a sorry state of affairs. It seems that the department has evolved a very cumbersome and time consuming procedure knowing fully well that the limitation for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal is ninety days. There are ways and means to curtail the delay by using advance communication technology. Provided there is a will to do so. 4 5. The delay of 255 days caused in filing the appeal means total period consumed is 345 days. It is mentioned in para 6 of the application that the delay caused is due to official procedure which is neither intentional nor deliberate. This may be true, but what appears is that there is a lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities in taking the decision within time. The delay of few days here and there on the ground of completing procedural formalities is understandable but not the delay of 255 days and consuming total period of 345 days. There being no explanation, much less plausible, the application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.