Usual Explanation Of Delay Given By Government Departments Cannot Be Accepted: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal Filed By GAIC Against Acquittal In Cheque Bounce Case

The Court was hearing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 460 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal in a Cheque Bounce Case where the complaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by exercising the power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Prosecution, 1973.

The bench of Justice M.K. Thakker observed, “this Court is of the view that unless reasonable and acceptable explanation of delay is offered, usual explanation cannot be accepted and the Government Departments cannot be given a special status as they are in obligation to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment.”

Advocate P J Davawala appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Dhruvin N Dossani appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The complainant, which is a government entity, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886, for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 4.50L. Despite themselves filing the complaint neither the complainant nor their advocate appeared in Court on any scheduled date. Notices were issued to the complainant but were returned with no response after which the trial Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution. The complainant sought to appeal the acquittal, filing for leave and condonation of a 460-day delay, which is under consideration in the present Petition.

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported in 1992 (3) SCC 563 and quoted, “it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

The Court further mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) Through LRS. And ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in 2023 (10) SCC 531 and quoted, “Of course, the courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an ‘explanation’ from an ‘excuse’. Although people tend to see ‘explanation’ and ‘excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.”

The Court said that the contention made in the application as well as in the affidavit-in-rejoinder is merely an excuse, not an explanation for causing delay in preferring the application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal/appeal and explanations offered in the application are too vague and cannot be said to be satisfactory or sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of 460 days.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application.