A
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
·.?-
v .
.
CHANDA@ CHANDKORI AND ORS
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973:
-'(-
c
Appiication /or leave to appeal against acquittal-Rejected by
High Court by a cryptic order-Held: While.disposing of an application
for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is expected that High Court
should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind-Since
that has not been done in the instant case, order of High Court is set
D aside and the matter remitted back to it for passing an order after
showing due application of mind
Delay-Condonation of-260 days delay in filing Special Leave
Petition by Government-Held: Ordinarily Court would not condone
such a long delay-Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the
E parties-However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
delay condoned-Constitution of India-Article 136.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1293of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2005 of the High Court
..j
F
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in.D.B. Criminal Leave to
Appeal No. 165of2005.
Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.
G
B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Mamta Jain, Neha Tiwari and Dr. Vipin
Gupta for the Respondents.
)---
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
H
290
STATEOFRAJASTHANv. CHANDA@CHANDKORI 291
We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
A
This appeal is barred by time by 260 days. Ordinarily we may not B
have condoned such a long delay, and we do not appreciate the delays
caused in filing Special Leave Petitions by the Government before this
Court. Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the parties. However,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July C
2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Leave to appeal No. 165 of2005 whereby
the Division Bench of the High Court had passed a cryptic order dismissing
the application for leave to appeal against as acquittal judgment without
giving proper reasons and without showing due application of mind. While
disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is D
expected that the High Court should pass a speaking order showing due
application of mind. Of Course the said order need not be as elaborate
as a full fledged judgment, but at least briefly some reasons should be
given. That has not been done in this case. Hence we cannot sustain the
impugned order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court. We set E
aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High
Court for passing an order after showing due application of mind.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
RP.
Appeal allowed.
Lex