1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.577 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Milan Vasant Mhatre .. Respondent Ms.S.R.Borulkar for the applicant. Mr.T.K.Sinha for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th June 2009. JUDGMENT. : . Heard learned A.P.P for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. This is an application for condonation of delay of 182 days in filing a criminal revision application against order dated 15th March 2008. The averments made in the application reveal that application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order was made on 01st August 2008. The certified copy was ready on 27th August 2008. The Additional Public Prosecutor issued letter dated 11th November 2008 requesting the Law and Judiciary Department to take a decision to prefer revision application. When this application 2 was placed on board on 13th April 2009 this Court passed a detailed order. This Court observed that the delay from 15th March 2008 to 01st August 2008 as well as delay from 27th August 2008 till 11th November 2008 has not been explained. Therefore, time of two weeks was granted to file further affidavit. There are two affidavits of concerned Additional Public Prosecutor filed on record. The first affidavit is dated 04th may 2009 and the second affidavit is dated 28th May 2009. In the first affidavit the concerned A.P.P has stated that after the impugned order was passed she conveyed the order to the concerned police station and directed the police station to take steps for getting the certified copies and directed the concerned police station to send the concerned investigating officer alongwith the papers. In the said affidavit there is no explanation for the delay which is noted in order dated 13th April 2009 passed by this Court. In the subsequent affidavit of the learned A.P.P it is stated that on 15th March 2008 she had conveyed the fact of passing the impugned order to the police station through the concerned Court Duty Constable and she had asked them to deposit an amount for obtaining certified copies. She has stated that no one from the police station turned up, therefore, on 28th July 2008 she issued a letter to the concerned 3 police station and directed the police station to deposit an amount for getting the certified copies. She stated that thereafter one police constable from police station approached her on 01st August 2008 and thereafter she applied for certified copies. The delay in submitting the proposal is sought to be explained by stating that no one from the concerned police station met the Additional Public Prosecutor with the papers and instructions for drafting revision application and therefore there was a delay in submitting the proposal. 2] To say the least, it is shocking to note that office of Public Prosecutor and District Government Pleader waited for more than four months to apply for certified copy of the impugned order and an application for certified copy of the impugned order was made only after the police constable came with the money. If any adverse order was passed, it was the duty of the office of the Public Prosecutor to apply for certified copy of the order and office of the Public Prosecutor could not have waited till the paltry amount required for applying for certified copy was provided by the concerned police station or the police officer. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to Chapter 22 of the Criminal 4 Manual and in particular Rule 7 thereof. Rule 7 carves out an exception to the rules contained in the said chapter regarding payment of court fees. It provides that nothing contained in the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 will render the documents described in the said rule chargeable with any fee. The said clause (i) of Rule 7 provides that application for certified copy of the documents made on behalf of the State Government to the Criminal Court will not be chargeable with any fee. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that thus application made on behalf of the State Government for grant of certified copies will not be chargeable with any fee. The question was possibly of depositing a small amount of deposit with the application. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect in as much as whether any amount is required to be deposited alongwith an application of certified copy or not, that does not absolve the office of the Public Prosecutor from discharging its duty of making an application for obtaining certified copy of the order which is adverse to the State Government. The Public Prosecutor cannot wait till a police officer comes with charges. 3] The explanation for second part of the delay is 5 also not happy. It is very difficult to understand as to why the Public Prosecutor who had appeared in the matter required presence of a police officer to prepare proposal for challenging the order. 4] The Apex Court has repeatedly held that while deciding an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Court has to adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach. The delay has been occasioned on account of no fault of the investigating officer. The fault, if any, on the part of the Public Prosecutor is no ground to reject an application for condonation of delay where delay is of about 182 days. However, the prejudice which may be caused to the contesting respondent due to condonation of delay will have to be considered. This application appeared on board after notice was served to respondent on more than two occasions. The respondent had engaged services of advocate to defend this application. More than two additional affidavits have been filed by the State. Therefore, the applicant-State will have to pay a very heavy costs. The costs are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 5] Hence, I pass the following order: 6 : O R D E R : 1. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 2. The applicant will pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. Payment of costs will be condition precedent. Deposit of costs in this Court within the stipulated period shall be treated as a sufficient compliance. (A.S.OKA,J)