State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.

Decided On : Mar-26-1996

Court : Gujarat

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 3 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 5 => 'the N.D.P.S. Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 9 => 'Food Adulteration Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 11 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 12 => 'the Law Officers Rules',
			(int) 13 => 'the Law Officers'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.J. Vaidya',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Singh v. Chief of',
			(int) 3 => 'Rule',
			(int) 4 => 'H.N. Jagiwala',
			(int) 5 => 'Misc',
			(int) 6 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 7 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 8 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 9 => 'Law',
			(int) 10 => 'Government Pleader',
			(int) 11 => 'P.P./ G.P.',
			(int) 12 => 'justice.10',
			(int) 13 => 'Law Officers Rules',
			(int) 14 => 'Order'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'A.P.P.s',
			(int) 2 => 'addressee'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '18 days',
			(int) 1 => '1994(2',
			(int) 2 => '1577',
			(int) 3 => '1995',
			(int) 4 => '1990',
			(int) 5 => '1995',
			(int) 6 => 'years',
			(int) 7 => 'every year',
			(int) 8 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 9 => 'two months',
			(int) 10 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 11 => 'these days',
			(int) 12 => 'daily',
			(int) 13 => 'daily',
			(int) 14 => 'every year',
			(int) 15 => 'further year',
			(int) 16 => 'every year',
			(int) 17 => 'daily',
			(int) 18 => 'some day',
			(int) 19 => 'last about 36 years',
			(int) 20 => 'Every year',
			(int) 21 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 22 => 'seven days',
			(int) 23 => 'the period of seven days',
			(int) 24 => '1993',
			(int) 25 => 'three months',
			(int) 26 => 'all these years',
			(int) 27 => '30 days',
			(int) 28 => '1996'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'State',
			(int) 1 => 'Stale of Gujarat',
			(int) 2 => 'Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Coram',
			(int) 4 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn',
			(int) 5 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 6 => 'L. Naik',
			(int) 7 => 'Army',
			(int) 8 => 'Criminal Appeal',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 11 => 'State',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 15 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 16 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 17 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 18 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 19 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 22 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 23 => 'the Office of the P.P.',
			(int) 24 => 'Government',
			(int) 25 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 26 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 27 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 28 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 29 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 30 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 31 => 'DARSHAN',
			(int) 32 => 'Courts',
			(int) 33 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 34 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 35 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Application',
			(int) 37 => 'the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders',
			(int) 39 => 'State',
			(int) 40 => 'Finance Department',
			(int) 41 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Public Prosecutors',
			(int) 44 => 'State',
			(int) 45 => 'Court',
			(int) 46 => 'Court',
			(int) 47 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 48 => 'Court',
			(int) 49 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 50 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 51 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 52 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 53 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 54 => 'the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders',
			(int) 55 => 'Departments',
			(int) 56 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 57 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Court',
			(int) 60 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 61 => 'Court',
			(int) 62 => 'Court',
			(int) 63 => 'State',
			(int) 64 => 'State',
			(int) 65 => 'the Complainant - Food Inspector',
			(int) 66 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 67 => 'Court',
			(int) 68 => 'Justice',
			(int) 69 => 'Courts',
			(int) 70 => 'Government',
			(int) 71 => 'Court',
			(int) 72 => 'the Office of the District Magistrate',
			(int) 73 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 74 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 75 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 76 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 77 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 78 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 79 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 80 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 81 => 'Court',
			(int) 82 => 'District Magistrates',
			(int) 83 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 84 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 85 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 86 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 87 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 88 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 89 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 90 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 91 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 92 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 93 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 94 => 'P.s & G.P.s',
			(int) 95 => 'Court',
			(int) 96 => 'Registry',
			(int) 97 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 98 => 'State',
			(int) 99 => 'Public Prosecutors',
			(int) 100 => 'Departments',
			(int) 101 => 'State',
			(int) 102 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 103 => 'State',
			(int) 104 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '637',
			(int) 1 => '605',
			(int) 2 => '23',
			(int) 3 => '625',
			(int) 4 => '375',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '16',
			(int) 7 => '19',
			(int) 8 => '29',
			(int) 9 => '10',
			(int) 10 => '5.',
			(int) 11 => 'only two',
			(int) 12 => 'one',
			(int) 13 => 'about 500 to 600',
			(int) 14 => '200/-',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => '500/-',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '661',
			(int) 19 => '2',
			(int) 20 => '3'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Para 3',
			(int) 1 => 'Para 7',
			(int) 2 => 'Branches'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'third',
			(int) 3 => 'fourth',
			(int) 4 => 'fifth',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'second',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'second',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'second',
			(int) 13 => 'third',
			(int) 14 => 'fourth'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.Ps',
			(int) 1 => 'Legal',
			(int) 2 => 'Gujarat',
			(int) 3 => 'G.Ps.',
			(int) 4 => 'G.Ps'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mohanlal Valji'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '743908',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Gujarat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question. s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N. 4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. , and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice. , and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-03-26',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.J. Vaidya and; M.H. Kadri, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.J. Vaidya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri.) 625, we do not deem it necessary to issue Rule to the respondent-accused, before condoning the delay. Accordingly, straightway we condone the delay and direct office to place the appeal, the same being Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1995 on admission board immediately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now, this matter indeed cannot be permitted to simply rest here only, merely by condoning the delay in question, as this Court has unfortunately consistent disturbing enough of experiences of delay in filing appeals, applications and revisions against the impugned judgments and/or orders on some such stock avoidable grounds, where we feel that if indeed the learned P.P.s/A.P.P.s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N.D.P.S. Act, why should they be unnecessarily permitted to be at large for years together by the time matter comes up for admission and thereafter on the final hearing-board Thus, with a view to immediately save the system suffering from its vulnerable relapsing negligence, quite avoidable, which has almost become a chronic disease undermining and crippling the overall interests of social justice, even in extremely serious cases of public importance and further more regarding which there do not appear to be any determined action much less any semblance of action so far taken against the concerned delinquents we, as the Constitutional functionary feel breathlessly constrained to find out some ways and means to combat and eradicate the evil of delay on the one hand unnecessarily delaying and dogging administration of justice frustrating cause of speedy justice, and on the other hand in turn every year adding dead-weight on the public exchequer, where people's money are unnecessarily wastefully squandered away by paying fees for the purpose in lacs to A.P.P.s appearing in such delay condonation applications.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A.P.P. applied for the certified copy thereof on the very same day. It was ready for delivery on 16-1-1995 and the same was obtained on 19-1-1995. Thereafter the proposal to file an acquittal appeal came to be forwarded by the learned A.P.P. vide his letter dated 29-3-1995. From this it is quite transparent that for two months and JO days after the certified copy was obtained, nothing was done by the learned A.P.P. Thus the prima facie inaction or remissness on the part of the concerned learned A.P.P. is quite apparent. In our view the act of the learned A.P.I', in applying for the certified copy on the very same day of the pronouncement of the judgment is indeed quite commendable, but that is not enough and certainly did not entitle him to relax thereafter. In fact, he should have indeed been quite quick and watchful enough in the first instance in taking an immediate decision for himself to propose or not to propose the acquittal appeal to the Legal Department, in the second instance. There after irrespective of his opinion whether to propose or not to propose appeal. he ought to have forwarded the copy of the impugned judgment and order to the Legal Department, in the third instance, further in seeing to it that his opinion was sent to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch with all necessary charge-sheet papers and evidence recorded before the Court, in the fourth instance personally supervised over his subordinate staff in seeing that his proposal/opinion was posted to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch, and in the fifth instance be on alert to see that the acknowledgement letter from Legal Department was received in the said regard. This daily, regular practice is required to be religiously followed up to be truly transparent, efficient and accountable Public Prosecutor. To apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order immediately and thereafter to file appeal in time is not the 'be all and end of everything'; as every Public Prosecutor is under the constant Constitutional obligation to act as swiftly as possible to help realize the goal of speedy justice, promised in Article 21 of the Constitution by not wasting time at any stage because of indolence We may further add here from our experience that this sort of lethargy and inefficiency as one noticed in the instant case is gradually making headway practically everywhere gaining momentum where sense of overall public duty and accountability is found gradually thrown to winds and vanishing This is quite alarming and upsetting. The reason perhaps is, in Government nobody bothers to do anything unless compelled Public interest and overall accountability these days none bothers about much to take care of unnecessarily inviting, costing displeasures and reactions from the concerned delinquents disturbing their easy way of the least resistance placid life. In fact, there are number of cases which Government lose entirely because of such outright negligence and default committed by the concerned P.P./A.P.P. (in some given cases where Government do not provide adequate staff to the Office of the P.P.) and yet there is none to monitor their work, audit and take account of their work, as if 'NO ACCOUNTABILITY' is the character and characteristic of the Government administration. The department under which such Public Prosecutors are working has as if lost its salt and mattle to control, regulate and if the need be to sack them from their services. Under the circumstances, unless and until some accountability at all stages is statutorily fixed upon the concerned officers, public work is not going to make any headway. In fact even fixing of accountability by itself is not going to help, save, salvage the situation any further unless the higher-ups in the concerned department also in their respective turn understand importance of efficiency, of the precious public time and also otherwise the resultant detrimental effect of wasting time in deliverance of goods, reliefs to the people for whom they are manning the public administration, and accordingly on the one hand firmly and absolutely resolve to take stern departmental action against the erring inefficient delinquents, and on the other hand, in cases where the delay, inefficiency is for want of adequale siaff. 10 provide the same at the earliest !</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To meet with the delay in question in the instant case. Mr. H.N. Jagiwala the learned A.P.P., has filed an affidavit in support of this application for condonation of the delay. Therein it is stated that the said delay has taken place because of paucity of staff. According to the learned A.P.P., in his office there are only two Junior Clerks and that they are over-burdened with work. Now, if this grievance is true and genuine, it should be voiced by the learned A.P.P. before his higher-ups and it would be indeed the duty of such higher-ups to attend to such grievances in their right earnest. Anyway, as far as giving of opinion and thereafter forwarding the same to the Legal Department is concerned that cannot be said to be a difficult task if the learned A.P.P. was indeed conscious enough of his primary duty and the accountability arising there from. For doing this little work, in our opinion, paucity of staff can never be a problem. What was required to be done was, the moment the copy of judgment and order of acquittal was received by the learned P.P., he ought to have immediately gone through it and found out infirmities in grounds for acquittal and prepared the proposal. What was further required to be done by him was that he ought to have looked to his diary daily and found out there from whether in the first instance he had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and in the second instance, whether he had forwarded the proposal or not. Daily diaries should be used as constant reminder. To avoid negligence and be ever punctual, disciplined and accountable every public servant must religiously 'DARSHAN' daily diary and that the P.Ps. and G.Ps. are not and indeed cannot be exception to this ! Not doing such simple things and taking convenient and totally unbelievable shelter all times behind such covers as of want of staff, pressure of work, papers mixed up and lost with other papers cannot mislead, before Courts all times to come. Accordingly, in every case which the P.P. conducts, he has to personally supervise and must see to it that at the earliest despatch his proposal/opinion leaves the office to reach the addressee, in Legal Department at Gandhinagar to enable it to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree at the earliest without losing any time. This is his unquestionable Constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If this much quite simple and yet important care is not taken, such spinned out grounds as the one taken in the present case of paucity of staff will not be of any assistance in all cases, rather for such palpably false grounds the learned A.P.P. may and can be held further accountable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In fact, our further experience so far as delay condonation applications in criminal matters are concerned, taking quite conservative estimate, roughly it appears that about 500 to 600 such applications are filed every year on some such stock-grounds. Same is the story and rough and ready estimate in civil matters also. Now, in every Misc. Criminal Application filed for condonation of delay, the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P., we are informed, is paid Rs. 200/- per matter. Thus, the approximate financial burden by way of fees on the public exchequer comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- every year !! If this much amount can be saved, from it at least some office of the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders in the State can be provided with some more clerks and other facilities thereby adding to their efficiency and also giving employment to many needy persons standing in queue. Not only this but the matters wherein the accused persons are tried for the alleged serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act or Bride-burning. Bride-killing. Dowry-death, etc. etc.. if there is unnecessary delay, then by the time, the matter reaches the admission stage. it would take further year or two more, and that would in turn give a cause of serious heart-burning to aggrieved complainant. Likewise, in civil matters also, every delay would further burden the public exchequer with recurring interest on the decretal amount. This can run into crores of rupees every year. Thus, such sort of delays' remissness being strictly and grossly and against not only the public revenue, public interest but also against Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be tolerated even for a while. It is simply shocking and disturbing as to how indeed it has not struck the Government in particular Secretary, Finance Department and Secretary, Legal Department, so far to get rid of this sticky pastering problem of delay in they? instance unnecessarily eating away the vital public revenue and in the second instance offending Article 21 of the Constitution, by giving suitable direction in the matter taking care of public revenue, and the ultimate interests of justice !! The problem involved indeed being of quite great public importance of daily recurrence, we just can't sit merely grumbling, castigating the Government with its inefficiency to control the situation, or wait till the time Government take some steps at least paper-steps (!) some day in the direction. The curse of delays in filing appeal, etc. is dogging our High Court since last about 36 years. Nothing has been done so far. Every year the appeals, revisions, etc., are filed, question of delay raised, delay condonation applications are filed supported by affidavit. This circle goes on and on mechanically, without any officers of Government ever applying and thinking as to what is the wrong, how, where, why and what accordingly needs to be done to stem the unhappy situation to find out solution. The problem of delay at any stage is indeed quite formidable problem in the way of efficient Court management and speedy justice ! This is where and why we are required to wake up all concerned. In this view of the matter, let the concerned Public Prosecutors and for that purpose, even Government Pleaders of the State and/or any other persons concerned with processing appeal, revision papers, in any department take notice that henceforth, if it is found that it was only wholly or partly because of them that the delay in question has taken place, then this Court and for that purpose any other competent Court will take a serious view of the matter ! Not only that, but it will be simply a misconduct on his part and in appropriate case, the concerned Public Prosecutor or the Government Pleader or any other person whosoever is responsible in delaying the matter in absence of reasonable explanation will be asked to pay costs upto any amount not less than Rs. 500/- from his own personal pocket, ultimately to be remitted in account of free legal aid. This would be irrespective of the fact whether delay is condoned or not ! Once you delay in filing and as a result. State machinery is unnecessarily not only made to work but where P.P./G.P. are to be paid fees wasting further the precious time of the Court, erring officers must pay cost and pay cost from their own pockets. This, in a way, is the inefficiency-tax, cost and punishment for delaying and defying the promise of 'speedy justice' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. We make it absolutely clear that whether the Public Prosecutor or for that purpose even the Government Pleader is of the opinion to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree or not, that is immaterial, but he must in the first instance apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on the very same day or at the earliest date thereafter, not beyond seven days, and thereafter in the second instance, forward the same at the earliest despatch to the ultimate decision taking authority, viz. Secretary, Legal Department at Gandhinagar. Not to apply for the certified copy immediately and/or at least within the period of seven days in absence of reasonable explanation, and thereafter to immediately forward the same to the Secretary, Legal Department, would be treated as gross misconduct by the learned P.P. /Government Pleader in charge of the case, for which the Legal Department must take a stern action and, if need be, first warn and thereafter if he repeats his misconduct, dismiss him after hearing him. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. For such noble and responsible P.P., G.P., and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. At this stage, we make it clear that whenever the Court finds delay in filing matters before the Court, and for that purpose makes some observations about the negligence and inaction of the concerned P.P./Officer as the case may be, this will not be treated as ground for not condoning the delay. This is a separate issue by itself, and accordingly, despite the negligence of the concerned P.P., etc., the Court can and must condone the delay in overall interests of justice as held by this Court in decision rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji, reported in 1993 (1) GLH 661. In this regard, it is indeed worthwhile to quote from relevant Para 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Now, assuming for the sake of argument only that the State is an agency distinct from the Complainant - Food Inspector, and further since the present acquittal appeal is filed by it only, the period of limitation prescribed in law should be three months, then even merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal because of certain 'none too difficult to appreciate and understand circumstances', namely, the red-tapism, negligence arising out of some impersonal attitude or lack of efficiency, pressure of work or in a given case some corruption, extra-influences, nepotism, etc., of the public servant for not expeditiously sending the proposal to the Legal Department, then even, looking to the overall 'public interest' involved in this case, namely, the prosecution against the respondent being under Food Adulteration Act, a public-welfare legislation in the larger and absolute interest of the health of the people at large, the delay, if any, at all is required to be condoned, beyond any manner of doubt. The Court while dealing and deciding the cases of socio-economic offences can never be permitted to set them at naught merely on the ground of some hyper-technicalities. As to do so is neither the Law nor the Justice nor the manner in which the Courts are expected to do the Justice. Barring few exceptions, it is an open secret that by and large the Government administration does not feel the pulse of the people, it lacks the much needed public-orientation, commitment to the public cause, etc. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. We do come across number of such cases wherein despite its urgency and importance of the issues and problems involved touching upon the public causes they are dealt with by the administrative personnel in a manner as if they are dealing with some dry and dead papers feeling no pulse or heart-beats of public care, hopes, aspirations, dreams, urges and prayers for relief and redressal contained in it. When such is the situation, in a die-hard bureaucratic set up, except some few rays of hope, it will be too much to expect efficiency in the public-administration. The question is: 'Can under such circumstances, the public cause he penalized and allowed to suffer because of some unavoidable delays caused by servants'? or 'Can the social piece of Legislation be permitted to be frustrated at the hands of inefficient administration'? It is under such circumstances that if the pragmatic view of the problem is not taken then howsoever laudable object the particular Act may have, the same will not reach the intended goal as over and above the ordinary breakers of law. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. It may also be observed that if the public servant has conducted himself inefficiently in a casual way to the detriment of the public interest by delaying the filing of the appeal or revision before the Court, this indeed being a very serious thing, he deserves to be deparimentally inquired and proceeded with, but then this is altogether a different issue and cannot be permitted to over-shadow the public cause of not getting the matter decided on merits because of some delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have also observed in number of such cases that because the matter is routed through the Office of the District Magistrate, that also takes considerable time, and in the result, the matter gets unnecessarily delayed. In our opinion, the District Magistrate may be the head of the District. But so far as the proposal to file acquittal appeal is concerned, the Public Prosecutor is the only and whole and sole authority to have his final say (in filing appeal) and once he opines that appeal against the acquittal is to be filed, he owes duty straight to the Legal Department, and if at all the District Magistrate has to be informed, only the copy of the said proposal and letter be sent to him. Thus far and not further. In fact, under no circumstances, the proposal is required to be routed through the District Magistrate, as he has indeed no authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to alter, modify or refuse the proposal to file acquittal appeal which further because of the bottlenecks in his office, results in unnecessary delay in the matter. In this view of the matter, if there are any rules which come in the way of the Public Prosecutor in contemplating straight action with the Legal Department then such rule is required to be scrapped, and if not scrapped, we hereby declare the same to have been scrapped. Any attempt hereafter to forward the proposal to file acquittal appeal through the District Magistrate will be considered as undermining the order of this Court, which would be viewed very seriously. Let this be known to all District Magistrates, Public Prosecutors, Government Pleaders and all others involved in the process of filing appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Incidentally, whatever we have observed regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor in applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and forward his opinion one way or the other immediately, also applies to the Government Pleaders in Court. He, likewise the Public Prosecutor is equally duty-bound and accountable, and accordingly, if he does not apply for the certified copy in time, he would stand equally liable as Public Prosecutor as stated hereinabove. The Government Pleader is also duty-bound 10 expeditiously forward his opinion and proposal to file appeal/revision (as the case may be) against the judgment, order and decree, straightway to the Secretary. Legal Department to save the precious public time and public interest involved. Because ultimately it is his opinion to file appeal which the Legal Department is ordinarily bound to accept. If Government Pleader is of the view that no appeal deserves to be filed, then even this opinion should also be invariably forwarded at once to the Legal Department so that in case the Government wants to file appeal, it can file in time. In cases wherein the P.P. and G.P. are of the opinion not to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree, then even such opinion is required to be forwarded at once to the Legal Department, because the said department as ultimate final decision taking authority, would know nothing about the matter and by the time it ultimately comes to know about the same, and decision to file appeal is taken, it is indeed too late in a day causing great delay in filing appeals, etc. It is for these reasons that P.P./ G.P. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. Otherwise, he would also be personally liable to pay for the cost from his personal pocket. We firmly believe that unless and until the concerned P.P. and G.P. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once again, no doubt, our views and directions above may perhaps sound little extraordinary and disagreeable to some technocrats, but at the same time having regard to the peculiar recurring facts, faults wherein the concerned departments all these years have not woken up to the cause and alarm and accordingly indeed shown any concern worth-name whatsoever in the matter of delays in filing appeals, applications, etc., and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P.Ps. and G.Ps., quite undermining the ultimate public interest and cause of justice, we have in the public interest ventured to prescribe some useful guidelines to P.Ps. and G.Ps. only with a view to see that even inadvertently they don't be a party working against the promise of speedy justice in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and public revenue. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.s & G.P.s, but since we also cannot stand harm to the Court management and ultimate cause of speedy justice, as a last resort as a stop-gap arrangement, till the time the Government frames, amends rules on the above lines, our views, directions shall stand, prevail as commanding rule to all concerned with all consequential accountability it entails, over-riding relevant rules under the Law Officers Rules, if any, contrary to our above directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this judgment, in the first instance to the Secretary, Legal Department, who in his turn shall do the needful to circulate the same within 30 days to (i) all the Law Officers of the State; (ii) its own concern Branches where its officials deal with screening and processing proposals, opinion in the matter of appeals, revision, applications, etc. etc. In the second instance, while appointing new Public Prosecutors to supply a copy of the said judgment and circulars to them also. In the third instance, to regularly monitor whether the directions given in this judgment are duly complied with or not and in the fourth instance, shall add, amend, Law Officers Rules by incorporating the above guidelines; (2) All Secretaries of various Departments, and (3) All the District Magistrates of the State, for information and necessary action. The Secretary, Legal Department and other Secretaries of the State are also further directed to report back the compliance of this Order at the earliest and preferably on or before 16th June, 1996, and on receipt of the same, shall be placed before this Bench Coram : K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri, JJ.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)1GLR260',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '743908'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 3 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 5 => 'the N.D.P.S. Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 9 => 'Food Adulteration Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 11 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 12 => 'the Law Officers Rules',
		(int) 13 => 'the Law Officers'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.J. Vaidya',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Singh v. Chief of',
		(int) 3 => 'Rule',
		(int) 4 => 'H.N. Jagiwala',
		(int) 5 => 'Misc',
		(int) 6 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 7 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 8 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 9 => 'Law',
		(int) 10 => 'Government Pleader',
		(int) 11 => 'P.P./ G.P.',
		(int) 12 => 'justice.10',
		(int) 13 => 'Law Officers Rules',
		(int) 14 => 'Order'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'A.P.P.s',
		(int) 2 => 'addressee'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '18 days',
		(int) 1 => '1994(2',
		(int) 2 => '1577',
		(int) 3 => '1995',
		(int) 4 => '1990',
		(int) 5 => '1995',
		(int) 6 => 'years',
		(int) 7 => 'every year',
		(int) 8 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 9 => 'two months',
		(int) 10 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 11 => 'these days',
		(int) 12 => 'daily',
		(int) 13 => 'daily',
		(int) 14 => 'every year',
		(int) 15 => 'further year',
		(int) 16 => 'every year',
		(int) 17 => 'daily',
		(int) 18 => 'some day',
		(int) 19 => 'last about 36 years',
		(int) 20 => 'Every year',
		(int) 21 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 22 => 'seven days',
		(int) 23 => 'the period of seven days',
		(int) 24 => '1993',
		(int) 25 => 'three months',
		(int) 26 => 'all these years',
		(int) 27 => '30 days',
		(int) 28 => '1996'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'State',
		(int) 1 => 'Stale of Gujarat',
		(int) 2 => 'Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Coram',
		(int) 4 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn',
		(int) 5 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 6 => 'L. Naik',
		(int) 7 => 'Army',
		(int) 8 => 'Criminal Appeal',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 11 => 'State',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 15 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 16 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 17 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 18 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 19 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 22 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 23 => 'the Office of the P.P.',
		(int) 24 => 'Government',
		(int) 25 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 26 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 27 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 28 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 29 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 30 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 31 => 'DARSHAN',
		(int) 32 => 'Courts',
		(int) 33 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 34 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 35 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Application',
		(int) 37 => 'the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders',
		(int) 39 => 'State',
		(int) 40 => 'Finance Department',
		(int) 41 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Public Prosecutors',
		(int) 44 => 'State',
		(int) 45 => 'Court',
		(int) 46 => 'Court',
		(int) 47 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 48 => 'Court',
		(int) 49 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 50 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 51 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 52 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 53 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 54 => 'the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders',
		(int) 55 => 'Departments',
		(int) 56 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 57 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Court',
		(int) 60 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 61 => 'Court',
		(int) 62 => 'Court',
		(int) 63 => 'State',
		(int) 64 => 'State',
		(int) 65 => 'the Complainant - Food Inspector',
		(int) 66 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 67 => 'Court',
		(int) 68 => 'Justice',
		(int) 69 => 'Courts',
		(int) 70 => 'Government',
		(int) 71 => 'Court',
		(int) 72 => 'the Office of the District Magistrate',
		(int) 73 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 74 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 75 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 76 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 77 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 78 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 79 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 80 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 81 => 'Court',
		(int) 82 => 'District Magistrates',
		(int) 83 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 84 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 85 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 86 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 87 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 88 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 89 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 90 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 91 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 92 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 93 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 94 => 'P.s & G.P.s',
		(int) 95 => 'Court',
		(int) 96 => 'Registry',
		(int) 97 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 98 => 'State',
		(int) 99 => 'Public Prosecutors',
		(int) 100 => 'Departments',
		(int) 101 => 'State',
		(int) 102 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 103 => 'State',
		(int) 104 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '637',
		(int) 1 => '605',
		(int) 2 => '23',
		(int) 3 => '625',
		(int) 4 => '375',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '16',
		(int) 7 => '19',
		(int) 8 => '29',
		(int) 9 => '10',
		(int) 10 => '5.',
		(int) 11 => 'only two',
		(int) 12 => 'one',
		(int) 13 => 'about 500 to 600',
		(int) 14 => '200/-',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => '500/-',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '661',
		(int) 19 => '2',
		(int) 20 => '3'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Para 3',
		(int) 1 => 'Para 7',
		(int) 2 => 'Branches'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'third',
		(int) 3 => 'fourth',
		(int) 4 => 'fifth',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'second',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'second',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'second',
		(int) 13 => 'third',
		(int) 14 => 'fourth'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.Ps',
		(int) 1 => 'Legal',
		(int) 2 => 'Gujarat',
		(int) 3 => 'G.Ps.',
		(int) 4 => 'G.Ps'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mohanlal Valji'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '743908',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Gujarat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question. s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N. 4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. , and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice. , and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-03-26',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.J. Vaidya and; M.H. Kadri, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.J. Vaidya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri.) 625, we do not deem it necessary to issue Rule to the respondent-accused, before condoning the delay. Accordingly, straightway we condone the delay and direct office to place the appeal, the same being Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1995 on admission board immediately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now, this matter indeed cannot be permitted to simply rest here only, merely by condoning the delay in question, as this Court has unfortunately consistent disturbing enough of experiences of delay in filing appeals, applications and revisions against the impugned judgments and/or orders on some such stock avoidable grounds, where we feel that if indeed the learned P.P.s/A.P.P.s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N.D.P.S. Act, why should they be unnecessarily permitted to be at large for years together by the time matter comes up for admission and thereafter on the final hearing-board Thus, with a view to immediately save the system suffering from its vulnerable relapsing negligence, quite avoidable, which has almost become a chronic disease undermining and crippling the overall interests of social justice, even in extremely serious cases of public importance and further more regarding which there do not appear to be any determined action much less any semblance of action so far taken against the concerned delinquents we, as the Constitutional functionary feel breathlessly constrained to find out some ways and means to combat and eradicate the evil of delay on the one hand unnecessarily delaying and dogging administration of justice frustrating cause of speedy justice, and on the other hand in turn every year adding dead-weight on the public exchequer, where people's money are unnecessarily wastefully squandered away by paying fees for the purpose in lacs to A.P.P.s appearing in such delay condonation applications.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A.P.P. applied for the certified copy thereof on the very same day. It was ready for delivery on 16-1-1995 and the same was obtained on 19-1-1995. Thereafter the proposal to file an acquittal appeal came to be forwarded by the learned A.P.P. vide his letter dated 29-3-1995. From this it is quite transparent that for two months and JO days after the certified copy was obtained, nothing was done by the learned A.P.P. Thus the prima facie inaction or remissness on the part of the concerned learned A.P.P. is quite apparent. In our view the act of the learned A.P.I', in applying for the certified copy on the very same day of the pronouncement of the judgment is indeed quite commendable, but that is not enough and certainly did not entitle him to relax thereafter. In fact, he should have indeed been quite quick and watchful enough in the first instance in taking an immediate decision for himself to propose or not to propose the acquittal appeal to the Legal Department, in the second instance. There after irrespective of his opinion whether to propose or not to propose appeal. he ought to have forwarded the copy of the impugned judgment and order to the Legal Department, in the third instance, further in seeing to it that his opinion was sent to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch with all necessary charge-sheet papers and evidence recorded before the Court, in the fourth instance personally supervised over his subordinate staff in seeing that his proposal/opinion was posted to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch, and in the fifth instance be on alert to see that the acknowledgement letter from Legal Department was received in the said regard. This daily, regular practice is required to be religiously followed up to be truly transparent, efficient and accountable Public Prosecutor. To apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order immediately and thereafter to file appeal in time is not the 'be all and end of everything'; as every Public Prosecutor is under the constant Constitutional obligation to act as swiftly as possible to help realize the goal of speedy justice, promised in Article 21 of the Constitution by not wasting time at any stage because of indolence We may further add here from our experience that this sort of lethargy and inefficiency as one noticed in the instant case is gradually making headway practically everywhere gaining momentum where sense of overall public duty and accountability is found gradually thrown to winds and vanishing This is quite alarming and upsetting. The reason perhaps is, in Government nobody bothers to do anything unless compelled Public interest and overall accountability these days none bothers about much to take care of unnecessarily inviting, costing displeasures and reactions from the concerned delinquents disturbing their easy way of the least resistance placid life. In fact, there are number of cases which Government lose entirely because of such outright negligence and default committed by the concerned P.P./A.P.P. (in some given cases where Government do not provide adequate staff to the Office of the P.P.) and yet there is none to monitor their work, audit and take account of their work, as if 'NO ACCOUNTABILITY' is the character and characteristic of the Government administration. The department under which such Public Prosecutors are working has as if lost its salt and mattle to control, regulate and if the need be to sack them from their services. Under the circumstances, unless and until some accountability at all stages is statutorily fixed upon the concerned officers, public work is not going to make any headway. In fact even fixing of accountability by itself is not going to help, save, salvage the situation any further unless the higher-ups in the concerned department also in their respective turn understand importance of efficiency, of the precious public time and also otherwise the resultant detrimental effect of wasting time in deliverance of goods, reliefs to the people for whom they are manning the public administration, and accordingly on the one hand firmly and absolutely resolve to take stern departmental action against the erring inefficient delinquents, and on the other hand, in cases where the delay, inefficiency is for want of adequale siaff. 10 provide the same at the earliest !</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To meet with the delay in question in the instant case. Mr. H.N. Jagiwala the learned A.P.P., has filed an affidavit in support of this application for condonation of the delay. Therein it is stated that the said delay has taken place because of paucity of staff. According to the learned A.P.P., in his office there are only two Junior Clerks and that they are over-burdened with work. Now, if this grievance is true and genuine, it should be voiced by the learned A.P.P. before his higher-ups and it would be indeed the duty of such higher-ups to attend to such grievances in their right earnest. Anyway, as far as giving of opinion and thereafter forwarding the same to the Legal Department is concerned that cannot be said to be a difficult task if the learned A.P.P. was indeed conscious enough of his primary duty and the accountability arising there from. For doing this little work, in our opinion, paucity of staff can never be a problem. What was required to be done was, the moment the copy of judgment and order of acquittal was received by the learned P.P., he ought to have immediately gone through it and found out infirmities in grounds for acquittal and prepared the proposal. What was further required to be done by him was that he ought to have looked to his diary daily and found out there from whether in the first instance he had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and in the second instance, whether he had forwarded the proposal or not. Daily diaries should be used as constant reminder. To avoid negligence and be ever punctual, disciplined and accountable every public servant must religiously 'DARSHAN' daily diary and that the P.Ps. and G.Ps. are not and indeed cannot be exception to this ! Not doing such simple things and taking convenient and totally unbelievable shelter all times behind such covers as of want of staff, pressure of work, papers mixed up and lost with other papers cannot mislead, before Courts all times to come. Accordingly, in every case which the P.P. conducts, he has to personally supervise and must see to it that at the earliest despatch his proposal/opinion leaves the office to reach the addressee, in Legal Department at Gandhinagar to enable it to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree at the earliest without losing any time. This is his unquestionable Constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If this much quite simple and yet important care is not taken, such spinned out grounds as the one taken in the present case of paucity of staff will not be of any assistance in all cases, rather for such palpably false grounds the learned A.P.P. may and can be held further accountable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In fact, our further experience so far as delay condonation applications in criminal matters are concerned, taking quite conservative estimate, roughly it appears that about 500 to 600 such applications are filed every year on some such stock-grounds. Same is the story and rough and ready estimate in civil matters also. Now, in every Misc. Criminal Application filed for condonation of delay, the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P., we are informed, is paid Rs. 200/- per matter. Thus, the approximate financial burden by way of fees on the public exchequer comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- every year !! If this much amount can be saved, from it at least some office of the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders in the State can be provided with some more clerks and other facilities thereby adding to their efficiency and also giving employment to many needy persons standing in queue. Not only this but the matters wherein the accused persons are tried for the alleged serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act or Bride-burning. Bride-killing. Dowry-death, etc. etc.. if there is unnecessary delay, then by the time, the matter reaches the admission stage. it would take further year or two more, and that would in turn give a cause of serious heart-burning to aggrieved complainant. Likewise, in civil matters also, every delay would further burden the public exchequer with recurring interest on the decretal amount. This can run into crores of rupees every year. Thus, such sort of delays' remissness being strictly and grossly and against not only the public revenue, public interest but also against Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be tolerated even for a while. It is simply shocking and disturbing as to how indeed it has not struck the Government in particular Secretary, Finance Department and Secretary, Legal Department, so far to get rid of this sticky pastering problem of delay in they? instance unnecessarily eating away the vital public revenue and in the second instance offending Article 21 of the Constitution, by giving suitable direction in the matter taking care of public revenue, and the ultimate interests of justice !! The problem involved indeed being of quite great public importance of daily recurrence, we just can't sit merely grumbling, castigating the Government with its inefficiency to control the situation, or wait till the time Government take some steps at least paper-steps (!) some day in the direction. The curse of delays in filing appeal, etc. is dogging our High Court since last about 36 years. Nothing has been done so far. Every year the appeals, revisions, etc., are filed, question of delay raised, delay condonation applications are filed supported by affidavit. This circle goes on and on mechanically, without any officers of Government ever applying and thinking as to what is the wrong, how, where, why and what accordingly needs to be done to stem the unhappy situation to find out solution. The problem of delay at any stage is indeed quite formidable problem in the way of efficient Court management and speedy justice ! This is where and why we are required to wake up all concerned. In this view of the matter, let the concerned Public Prosecutors and for that purpose, even Government Pleaders of the State and/or any other persons concerned with processing appeal, revision papers, in any department take notice that henceforth, if it is found that it was only wholly or partly because of them that the delay in question has taken place, then this Court and for that purpose any other competent Court will take a serious view of the matter ! Not only that, but it will be simply a misconduct on his part and in appropriate case, the concerned Public Prosecutor or the Government Pleader or any other person whosoever is responsible in delaying the matter in absence of reasonable explanation will be asked to pay costs upto any amount not less than Rs. 500/- from his own personal pocket, ultimately to be remitted in account of free legal aid. This would be irrespective of the fact whether delay is condoned or not ! Once you delay in filing and as a result. State machinery is unnecessarily not only made to work but where P.P./G.P. are to be paid fees wasting further the precious time of the Court, erring officers must pay cost and pay cost from their own pockets. This, in a way, is the inefficiency-tax, cost and punishment for delaying and defying the promise of 'speedy justice' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. We make it absolutely clear that whether the Public Prosecutor or for that purpose even the Government Pleader is of the opinion to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree or not, that is immaterial, but he must in the first instance apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on the very same day or at the earliest date thereafter, not beyond seven days, and thereafter in the second instance, forward the same at the earliest despatch to the ultimate decision taking authority, viz. Secretary, Legal Department at Gandhinagar. Not to apply for the certified copy immediately and/or at least within the period of seven days in absence of reasonable explanation, and thereafter to immediately forward the same to the Secretary, Legal Department, would be treated as gross misconduct by the learned P.P. /Government Pleader in charge of the case, for which the Legal Department must take a stern action and, if need be, first warn and thereafter if he repeats his misconduct, dismiss him after hearing him. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. For such noble and responsible P.P., G.P., and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. At this stage, we make it clear that whenever the Court finds delay in filing matters before the Court, and for that purpose makes some observations about the negligence and inaction of the concerned P.P./Officer as the case may be, this will not be treated as ground for not condoning the delay. This is a separate issue by itself, and accordingly, despite the negligence of the concerned P.P., etc., the Court can and must condone the delay in overall interests of justice as held by this Court in decision rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji, reported in 1993 (1) GLH 661. In this regard, it is indeed worthwhile to quote from relevant Para 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Now, assuming for the sake of argument only that the State is an agency distinct from the Complainant - Food Inspector, and further since the present acquittal appeal is filed by it only, the period of limitation prescribed in law should be three months, then even merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal because of certain 'none too difficult to appreciate and understand circumstances', namely, the red-tapism, negligence arising out of some impersonal attitude or lack of efficiency, pressure of work or in a given case some corruption, extra-influences, nepotism, etc., of the public servant for not expeditiously sending the proposal to the Legal Department, then even, looking to the overall 'public interest' involved in this case, namely, the prosecution against the respondent being under Food Adulteration Act, a public-welfare legislation in the larger and absolute interest of the health of the people at large, the delay, if any, at all is required to be condoned, beyond any manner of doubt. The Court while dealing and deciding the cases of socio-economic offences can never be permitted to set them at naught merely on the ground of some hyper-technicalities. As to do so is neither the Law nor the Justice nor the manner in which the Courts are expected to do the Justice. Barring few exceptions, it is an open secret that by and large the Government administration does not feel the pulse of the people, it lacks the much needed public-orientation, commitment to the public cause, etc. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. We do come across number of such cases wherein despite its urgency and importance of the issues and problems involved touching upon the public causes they are dealt with by the administrative personnel in a manner as if they are dealing with some dry and dead papers feeling no pulse or heart-beats of public care, hopes, aspirations, dreams, urges and prayers for relief and redressal contained in it. When such is the situation, in a die-hard bureaucratic set up, except some few rays of hope, it will be too much to expect efficiency in the public-administration. The question is: 'Can under such circumstances, the public cause he penalized and allowed to suffer because of some unavoidable delays caused by servants'? or 'Can the social piece of Legislation be permitted to be frustrated at the hands of inefficient administration'? It is under such circumstances that if the pragmatic view of the problem is not taken then howsoever laudable object the particular Act may have, the same will not reach the intended goal as over and above the ordinary breakers of law. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. It may also be observed that if the public servant has conducted himself inefficiently in a casual way to the detriment of the public interest by delaying the filing of the appeal or revision before the Court, this indeed being a very serious thing, he deserves to be deparimentally inquired and proceeded with, but then this is altogether a different issue and cannot be permitted to over-shadow the public cause of not getting the matter decided on merits because of some delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have also observed in number of such cases that because the matter is routed through the Office of the District Magistrate, that also takes considerable time, and in the result, the matter gets unnecessarily delayed. In our opinion, the District Magistrate may be the head of the District. But so far as the proposal to file acquittal appeal is concerned, the Public Prosecutor is the only and whole and sole authority to have his final say (in filing appeal) and once he opines that appeal against the acquittal is to be filed, he owes duty straight to the Legal Department, and if at all the District Magistrate has to be informed, only the copy of the said proposal and letter be sent to him. Thus far and not further. In fact, under no circumstances, the proposal is required to be routed through the District Magistrate, as he has indeed no authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to alter, modify or refuse the proposal to file acquittal appeal which further because of the bottlenecks in his office, results in unnecessary delay in the matter. In this view of the matter, if there are any rules which come in the way of the Public Prosecutor in contemplating straight action with the Legal Department then such rule is required to be scrapped, and if not scrapped, we hereby declare the same to have been scrapped. Any attempt hereafter to forward the proposal to file acquittal appeal through the District Magistrate will be considered as undermining the order of this Court, which would be viewed very seriously. Let this be known to all District Magistrates, Public Prosecutors, Government Pleaders and all others involved in the process of filing appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Incidentally, whatever we have observed regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor in applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and forward his opinion one way or the other immediately, also applies to the Government Pleaders in Court. He, likewise the Public Prosecutor is equally duty-bound and accountable, and accordingly, if he does not apply for the certified copy in time, he would stand equally liable as Public Prosecutor as stated hereinabove. The Government Pleader is also duty-bound 10 expeditiously forward his opinion and proposal to file appeal/revision (as the case may be) against the judgment, order and decree, straightway to the Secretary. Legal Department to save the precious public time and public interest involved. Because ultimately it is his opinion to file appeal which the Legal Department is ordinarily bound to accept. If Government Pleader is of the view that no appeal deserves to be filed, then even this opinion should also be invariably forwarded at once to the Legal Department so that in case the Government wants to file appeal, it can file in time. In cases wherein the P.P. and G.P. are of the opinion not to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree, then even such opinion is required to be forwarded at once to the Legal Department, because the said department as ultimate final decision taking authority, would know nothing about the matter and by the time it ultimately comes to know about the same, and decision to file appeal is taken, it is indeed too late in a day causing great delay in filing appeals, etc. It is for these reasons that P.P./ G.P. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. Otherwise, he would also be personally liable to pay for the cost from his personal pocket. We firmly believe that unless and until the concerned P.P. and G.P. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once again, no doubt, our views and directions above may perhaps sound little extraordinary and disagreeable to some technocrats, but at the same time having regard to the peculiar recurring facts, faults wherein the concerned departments all these years have not woken up to the cause and alarm and accordingly indeed shown any concern worth-name whatsoever in the matter of delays in filing appeals, applications, etc., and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P.Ps. and G.Ps., quite undermining the ultimate public interest and cause of justice, we have in the public interest ventured to prescribe some useful guidelines to P.Ps. and G.Ps. only with a view to see that even inadvertently they don't be a party working against the promise of speedy justice in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and public revenue. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.s & G.P.s, but since we also cannot stand harm to the Court management and ultimate cause of speedy justice, as a last resort as a stop-gap arrangement, till the time the Government frames, amends rules on the above lines, our views, directions shall stand, prevail as commanding rule to all concerned with all consequential accountability it entails, over-riding relevant rules under the Law Officers Rules, if any, contrary to our above directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this judgment, in the first instance to the Secretary, Legal Department, who in his turn shall do the needful to circulate the same within 30 days to (i) all the Law Officers of the State; (ii) its own concern Branches where its officials deal with screening and processing proposals, opinion in the matter of appeals, revision, applications, etc. etc. In the second instance, while appointing new Public Prosecutors to supply a copy of the said judgment and circulars to them also. In the third instance, to regularly monitor whether the directions given in this judgment are duly complied with or not and in the fourth instance, shall add, amend, Law Officers Rules by incorporating the above guidelines; (2) All Secretaries of various Departments, and (3) All the District Magistrates of the State, for information and necessary action. The Secretary, Legal Department and other Secretaries of the State are also further directed to report back the compliance of this Order at the earliest and preferably on or before 16th June, 1996, and on receipt of the same, shall be placed before this Bench Coram : K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri, JJ.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)1GLR260',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '743908'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 3 => 'Constitutional',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 5 => 'the N.D.P.S. Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
			(int) 9 => 'Food Adulteration Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 11 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 12 => 'the Law Officers Rules',
			(int) 13 => 'the Law Officers'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'K.J. Vaidya',
			(int) 1 => 'Misc',
			(int) 2 => 'Singh v. Chief of',
			(int) 3 => 'Rule',
			(int) 4 => 'H.N. Jagiwala',
			(int) 5 => 'Misc',
			(int) 6 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 7 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 8 => 'Pleader',
			(int) 9 => 'Law',
			(int) 10 => 'Government Pleader',
			(int) 11 => 'P.P./ G.P.',
			(int) 12 => 'justice.10',
			(int) 13 => 'Law Officers Rules',
			(int) 14 => 'Order'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'A.P.P.s',
			(int) 2 => 'addressee'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '18 days',
			(int) 1 => '1994(2',
			(int) 2 => '1577',
			(int) 3 => '1995',
			(int) 4 => '1990',
			(int) 5 => '1995',
			(int) 6 => 'years',
			(int) 7 => 'every year',
			(int) 8 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 9 => 'two months',
			(int) 10 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 11 => 'these days',
			(int) 12 => 'daily',
			(int) 13 => 'daily',
			(int) 14 => 'every year',
			(int) 15 => 'further year',
			(int) 16 => 'every year',
			(int) 17 => 'daily',
			(int) 18 => 'some day',
			(int) 19 => 'last about 36 years',
			(int) 20 => 'Every year',
			(int) 21 => 'the very same day',
			(int) 22 => 'seven days',
			(int) 23 => 'the period of seven days',
			(int) 24 => '1993',
			(int) 25 => 'three months',
			(int) 26 => 'all these years',
			(int) 27 => '30 days',
			(int) 28 => '1996'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'State',
			(int) 1 => 'Stale of Gujarat',
			(int) 2 => 'Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Coram',
			(int) 4 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn',
			(int) 5 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 6 => 'L. Naik',
			(int) 7 => 'Army',
			(int) 8 => 'Criminal Appeal',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 11 => 'State',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 15 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 16 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 17 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 18 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 19 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 22 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 23 => 'the Office of the P.P.',
			(int) 24 => 'Government',
			(int) 25 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 26 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 27 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 28 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 29 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 30 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 31 => 'DARSHAN',
			(int) 32 => 'Courts',
			(int) 33 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 34 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 35 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 36 => 'Criminal Application',
			(int) 37 => 'the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders',
			(int) 39 => 'State',
			(int) 40 => 'Finance Department',
			(int) 41 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Public Prosecutors',
			(int) 44 => 'State',
			(int) 45 => 'Court',
			(int) 46 => 'Court',
			(int) 47 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 48 => 'Court',
			(int) 49 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 50 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 51 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 52 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 53 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 54 => 'the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders',
			(int) 55 => 'Departments',
			(int) 56 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 57 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 58 => 'Court',
			(int) 59 => 'Court',
			(int) 60 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 61 => 'Court',
			(int) 62 => 'Court',
			(int) 63 => 'State',
			(int) 64 => 'State',
			(int) 65 => 'the Complainant - Food Inspector',
			(int) 66 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 67 => 'Court',
			(int) 68 => 'Justice',
			(int) 69 => 'Courts',
			(int) 70 => 'Government',
			(int) 71 => 'Court',
			(int) 72 => 'the Office of the District Magistrate',
			(int) 73 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 74 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 75 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 76 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 77 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 78 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 79 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 80 => 'the District Magistrate',
			(int) 81 => 'Court',
			(int) 82 => 'District Magistrates',
			(int) 83 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 84 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 85 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 86 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 87 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 88 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 89 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 90 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 91 => 'the Legal Department',
			(int) 92 => 'P.P.',
			(int) 93 => 'G.P.',
			(int) 94 => 'P.s & G.P.s',
			(int) 95 => 'Court',
			(int) 96 => 'Registry',
			(int) 97 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 98 => 'State',
			(int) 99 => 'Public Prosecutors',
			(int) 100 => 'Departments',
			(int) 101 => 'State',
			(int) 102 => 'Legal Department',
			(int) 103 => 'State',
			(int) 104 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '637',
			(int) 1 => '605',
			(int) 2 => '23',
			(int) 3 => '625',
			(int) 4 => '375',
			(int) 5 => '2',
			(int) 6 => '16',
			(int) 7 => '19',
			(int) 8 => '29',
			(int) 9 => '10',
			(int) 10 => '5.',
			(int) 11 => 'only two',
			(int) 12 => 'one',
			(int) 13 => 'about 500 to 600',
			(int) 14 => '200/-',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => '500/-',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '661',
			(int) 19 => '2',
			(int) 20 => '3'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Para 3',
			(int) 1 => 'Para 7',
			(int) 2 => 'Branches'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'third',
			(int) 3 => 'fourth',
			(int) 4 => 'fifth',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'second',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'second',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'second',
			(int) 13 => 'third',
			(int) 14 => 'fourth'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'G.Ps',
			(int) 1 => 'Legal',
			(int) 2 => 'Gujarat',
			(int) 3 => 'G.Ps.',
			(int) 4 => 'G.Ps'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mohanlal Valji'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '743908',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'State of Gujarat',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question. s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N. 4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. , and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice. , and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-03-26',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' K.J. Vaidya and; M.H. Kadri, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.J. Vaidya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri.) 625, we do not deem it necessary to issue Rule to the respondent-accused, before condoning the delay. Accordingly, straightway we condone the delay and direct office to place the appeal, the same being Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1995 on admission board immediately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now, this matter indeed cannot be permitted to simply rest here only, merely by condoning the delay in question, as this Court has unfortunately consistent disturbing enough of experiences of delay in filing appeals, applications and revisions against the impugned judgments and/or orders on some such stock avoidable grounds, where we feel that if indeed the learned P.P.s/A.P.P.s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N.D.P.S. Act, why should they be unnecessarily permitted to be at large for years together by the time matter comes up for admission and thereafter on the final hearing-board Thus, with a view to immediately save the system suffering from its vulnerable relapsing negligence, quite avoidable, which has almost become a chronic disease undermining and crippling the overall interests of social justice, even in extremely serious cases of public importance and further more regarding which there do not appear to be any determined action much less any semblance of action so far taken against the concerned delinquents we, as the Constitutional functionary feel breathlessly constrained to find out some ways and means to combat and eradicate the evil of delay on the one hand unnecessarily delaying and dogging administration of justice frustrating cause of speedy justice, and on the other hand in turn every year adding dead-weight on the public exchequer, where people's money are unnecessarily wastefully squandered away by paying fees for the purpose in lacs to A.P.P.s appearing in such delay condonation applications.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A.P.P. applied for the certified copy thereof on the very same day. It was ready for delivery on 16-1-1995 and the same was obtained on 19-1-1995. Thereafter the proposal to file an acquittal appeal came to be forwarded by the learned A.P.P. vide his letter dated 29-3-1995. From this it is quite transparent that for two months and JO days after the certified copy was obtained, nothing was done by the learned A.P.P. Thus the prima facie inaction or remissness on the part of the concerned learned A.P.P. is quite apparent. In our view the act of the learned A.P.I', in applying for the certified copy on the very same day of the pronouncement of the judgment is indeed quite commendable, but that is not enough and certainly did not entitle him to relax thereafter. In fact, he should have indeed been quite quick and watchful enough in the first instance in taking an immediate decision for himself to propose or not to propose the acquittal appeal to the Legal Department, in the second instance. There after irrespective of his opinion whether to propose or not to propose appeal. he ought to have forwarded the copy of the impugned judgment and order to the Legal Department, in the third instance, further in seeing to it that his opinion was sent to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch with all necessary charge-sheet papers and evidence recorded before the Court, in the fourth instance personally supervised over his subordinate staff in seeing that his proposal/opinion was posted to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch, and in the fifth instance be on alert to see that the acknowledgement letter from Legal Department was received in the said regard. This daily, regular practice is required to be religiously followed up to be truly transparent, efficient and accountable Public Prosecutor. To apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order immediately and thereafter to file appeal in time is not the 'be all and end of everything'; as every Public Prosecutor is under the constant Constitutional obligation to act as swiftly as possible to help realize the goal of speedy justice, promised in Article 21 of the Constitution by not wasting time at any stage because of indolence We may further add here from our experience that this sort of lethargy and inefficiency as one noticed in the instant case is gradually making headway practically everywhere gaining momentum where sense of overall public duty and accountability is found gradually thrown to winds and vanishing This is quite alarming and upsetting. The reason perhaps is, in Government nobody bothers to do anything unless compelled Public interest and overall accountability these days none bothers about much to take care of unnecessarily inviting, costing displeasures and reactions from the concerned delinquents disturbing their easy way of the least resistance placid life. In fact, there are number of cases which Government lose entirely because of such outright negligence and default committed by the concerned P.P./A.P.P. (in some given cases where Government do not provide adequate staff to the Office of the P.P.) and yet there is none to monitor their work, audit and take account of their work, as if 'NO ACCOUNTABILITY' is the character and characteristic of the Government administration. The department under which such Public Prosecutors are working has as if lost its salt and mattle to control, regulate and if the need be to sack them from their services. Under the circumstances, unless and until some accountability at all stages is statutorily fixed upon the concerned officers, public work is not going to make any headway. In fact even fixing of accountability by itself is not going to help, save, salvage the situation any further unless the higher-ups in the concerned department also in their respective turn understand importance of efficiency, of the precious public time and also otherwise the resultant detrimental effect of wasting time in deliverance of goods, reliefs to the people for whom they are manning the public administration, and accordingly on the one hand firmly and absolutely resolve to take stern departmental action against the erring inefficient delinquents, and on the other hand, in cases where the delay, inefficiency is for want of adequale siaff. 10 provide the same at the earliest !</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To meet with the delay in question in the instant case. Mr. H.N. Jagiwala the learned A.P.P., has filed an affidavit in support of this application for condonation of the delay. Therein it is stated that the said delay has taken place because of paucity of staff. According to the learned A.P.P., in his office there are only two Junior Clerks and that they are over-burdened with work. Now, if this grievance is true and genuine, it should be voiced by the learned A.P.P. before his higher-ups and it would be indeed the duty of such higher-ups to attend to such grievances in their right earnest. Anyway, as far as giving of opinion and thereafter forwarding the same to the Legal Department is concerned that cannot be said to be a difficult task if the learned A.P.P. was indeed conscious enough of his primary duty and the accountability arising there from. For doing this little work, in our opinion, paucity of staff can never be a problem. What was required to be done was, the moment the copy of judgment and order of acquittal was received by the learned P.P., he ought to have immediately gone through it and found out infirmities in grounds for acquittal and prepared the proposal. What was further required to be done by him was that he ought to have looked to his diary daily and found out there from whether in the first instance he had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and in the second instance, whether he had forwarded the proposal or not. Daily diaries should be used as constant reminder. To avoid negligence and be ever punctual, disciplined and accountable every public servant must religiously 'DARSHAN' daily diary and that the P.Ps. and G.Ps. are not and indeed cannot be exception to this ! Not doing such simple things and taking convenient and totally unbelievable shelter all times behind such covers as of want of staff, pressure of work, papers mixed up and lost with other papers cannot mislead, before Courts all times to come. Accordingly, in every case which the P.P. conducts, he has to personally supervise and must see to it that at the earliest despatch his proposal/opinion leaves the office to reach the addressee, in Legal Department at Gandhinagar to enable it to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree at the earliest without losing any time. This is his unquestionable Constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If this much quite simple and yet important care is not taken, such spinned out grounds as the one taken in the present case of paucity of staff will not be of any assistance in all cases, rather for such palpably false grounds the learned A.P.P. may and can be held further accountable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In fact, our further experience so far as delay condonation applications in criminal matters are concerned, taking quite conservative estimate, roughly it appears that about 500 to 600 such applications are filed every year on some such stock-grounds. Same is the story and rough and ready estimate in civil matters also. Now, in every Misc. Criminal Application filed for condonation of delay, the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P., we are informed, is paid Rs. 200/- per matter. Thus, the approximate financial burden by way of fees on the public exchequer comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- every year !! If this much amount can be saved, from it at least some office of the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders in the State can be provided with some more clerks and other facilities thereby adding to their efficiency and also giving employment to many needy persons standing in queue. Not only this but the matters wherein the accused persons are tried for the alleged serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act or Bride-burning. Bride-killing. Dowry-death, etc. etc.. if there is unnecessary delay, then by the time, the matter reaches the admission stage. it would take further year or two more, and that would in turn give a cause of serious heart-burning to aggrieved complainant. Likewise, in civil matters also, every delay would further burden the public exchequer with recurring interest on the decretal amount. This can run into crores of rupees every year. Thus, such sort of delays' remissness being strictly and grossly and against not only the public revenue, public interest but also against Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be tolerated even for a while. It is simply shocking and disturbing as to how indeed it has not struck the Government in particular Secretary, Finance Department and Secretary, Legal Department, so far to get rid of this sticky pastering problem of delay in they? instance unnecessarily eating away the vital public revenue and in the second instance offending Article 21 of the Constitution, by giving suitable direction in the matter taking care of public revenue, and the ultimate interests of justice !! The problem involved indeed being of quite great public importance of daily recurrence, we just can't sit merely grumbling, castigating the Government with its inefficiency to control the situation, or wait till the time Government take some steps at least paper-steps (!) some day in the direction. The curse of delays in filing appeal, etc. is dogging our High Court since last about 36 years. Nothing has been done so far. Every year the appeals, revisions, etc., are filed, question of delay raised, delay condonation applications are filed supported by affidavit. This circle goes on and on mechanically, without any officers of Government ever applying and thinking as to what is the wrong, how, where, why and what accordingly needs to be done to stem the unhappy situation to find out solution. The problem of delay at any stage is indeed quite formidable problem in the way of efficient Court management and speedy justice ! This is where and why we are required to wake up all concerned. In this view of the matter, let the concerned Public Prosecutors and for that purpose, even Government Pleaders of the State and/or any other persons concerned with processing appeal, revision papers, in any department take notice that henceforth, if it is found that it was only wholly or partly because of them that the delay in question has taken place, then this Court and for that purpose any other competent Court will take a serious view of the matter ! Not only that, but it will be simply a misconduct on his part and in appropriate case, the concerned Public Prosecutor or the Government Pleader or any other person whosoever is responsible in delaying the matter in absence of reasonable explanation will be asked to pay costs upto any amount not less than Rs. 500/- from his own personal pocket, ultimately to be remitted in account of free legal aid. This would be irrespective of the fact whether delay is condoned or not ! Once you delay in filing and as a result. State machinery is unnecessarily not only made to work but where P.P./G.P. are to be paid fees wasting further the precious time of the Court, erring officers must pay cost and pay cost from their own pockets. This, in a way, is the inefficiency-tax, cost and punishment for delaying and defying the promise of 'speedy justice' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. We make it absolutely clear that whether the Public Prosecutor or for that purpose even the Government Pleader is of the opinion to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree or not, that is immaterial, but he must in the first instance apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on the very same day or at the earliest date thereafter, not beyond seven days, and thereafter in the second instance, forward the same at the earliest despatch to the ultimate decision taking authority, viz. Secretary, Legal Department at Gandhinagar. Not to apply for the certified copy immediately and/or at least within the period of seven days in absence of reasonable explanation, and thereafter to immediately forward the same to the Secretary, Legal Department, would be treated as gross misconduct by the learned P.P. /Government Pleader in charge of the case, for which the Legal Department must take a stern action and, if need be, first warn and thereafter if he repeats his misconduct, dismiss him after hearing him. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. For such noble and responsible P.P., G.P., and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. At this stage, we make it clear that whenever the Court finds delay in filing matters before the Court, and for that purpose makes some observations about the negligence and inaction of the concerned P.P./Officer as the case may be, this will not be treated as ground for not condoning the delay. This is a separate issue by itself, and accordingly, despite the negligence of the concerned P.P., etc., the Court can and must condone the delay in overall interests of justice as held by this Court in decision rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji, reported in 1993 (1) GLH 661. In this regard, it is indeed worthwhile to quote from relevant Para 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Now, assuming for the sake of argument only that the State is an agency distinct from the Complainant - Food Inspector, and further since the present acquittal appeal is filed by it only, the period of limitation prescribed in law should be three months, then even merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal because of certain 'none too difficult to appreciate and understand circumstances', namely, the red-tapism, negligence arising out of some impersonal attitude or lack of efficiency, pressure of work or in a given case some corruption, extra-influences, nepotism, etc., of the public servant for not expeditiously sending the proposal to the Legal Department, then even, looking to the overall 'public interest' involved in this case, namely, the prosecution against the respondent being under Food Adulteration Act, a public-welfare legislation in the larger and absolute interest of the health of the people at large, the delay, if any, at all is required to be condoned, beyond any manner of doubt. The Court while dealing and deciding the cases of socio-economic offences can never be permitted to set them at naught merely on the ground of some hyper-technicalities. As to do so is neither the Law nor the Justice nor the manner in which the Courts are expected to do the Justice. Barring few exceptions, it is an open secret that by and large the Government administration does not feel the pulse of the people, it lacks the much needed public-orientation, commitment to the public cause, etc. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. We do come across number of such cases wherein despite its urgency and importance of the issues and problems involved touching upon the public causes they are dealt with by the administrative personnel in a manner as if they are dealing with some dry and dead papers feeling no pulse or heart-beats of public care, hopes, aspirations, dreams, urges and prayers for relief and redressal contained in it. When such is the situation, in a die-hard bureaucratic set up, except some few rays of hope, it will be too much to expect efficiency in the public-administration. The question is: 'Can under such circumstances, the public cause he penalized and allowed to suffer because of some unavoidable delays caused by servants'? or 'Can the social piece of Legislation be permitted to be frustrated at the hands of inefficient administration'? It is under such circumstances that if the pragmatic view of the problem is not taken then howsoever laudable object the particular Act may have, the same will not reach the intended goal as over and above the ordinary breakers of law. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. It may also be observed that if the public servant has conducted himself inefficiently in a casual way to the detriment of the public interest by delaying the filing of the appeal or revision before the Court, this indeed being a very serious thing, he deserves to be deparimentally inquired and proceeded with, but then this is altogether a different issue and cannot be permitted to over-shadow the public cause of not getting the matter decided on merits because of some delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have also observed in number of such cases that because the matter is routed through the Office of the District Magistrate, that also takes considerable time, and in the result, the matter gets unnecessarily delayed. In our opinion, the District Magistrate may be the head of the District. But so far as the proposal to file acquittal appeal is concerned, the Public Prosecutor is the only and whole and sole authority to have his final say (in filing appeal) and once he opines that appeal against the acquittal is to be filed, he owes duty straight to the Legal Department, and if at all the District Magistrate has to be informed, only the copy of the said proposal and letter be sent to him. Thus far and not further. In fact, under no circumstances, the proposal is required to be routed through the District Magistrate, as he has indeed no authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to alter, modify or refuse the proposal to file acquittal appeal which further because of the bottlenecks in his office, results in unnecessary delay in the matter. In this view of the matter, if there are any rules which come in the way of the Public Prosecutor in contemplating straight action with the Legal Department then such rule is required to be scrapped, and if not scrapped, we hereby declare the same to have been scrapped. Any attempt hereafter to forward the proposal to file acquittal appeal through the District Magistrate will be considered as undermining the order of this Court, which would be viewed very seriously. Let this be known to all District Magistrates, Public Prosecutors, Government Pleaders and all others involved in the process of filing appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Incidentally, whatever we have observed regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor in applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and forward his opinion one way or the other immediately, also applies to the Government Pleaders in Court. He, likewise the Public Prosecutor is equally duty-bound and accountable, and accordingly, if he does not apply for the certified copy in time, he would stand equally liable as Public Prosecutor as stated hereinabove. The Government Pleader is also duty-bound 10 expeditiously forward his opinion and proposal to file appeal/revision (as the case may be) against the judgment, order and decree, straightway to the Secretary. Legal Department to save the precious public time and public interest involved. Because ultimately it is his opinion to file appeal which the Legal Department is ordinarily bound to accept. If Government Pleader is of the view that no appeal deserves to be filed, then even this opinion should also be invariably forwarded at once to the Legal Department so that in case the Government wants to file appeal, it can file in time. In cases wherein the P.P. and G.P. are of the opinion not to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree, then even such opinion is required to be forwarded at once to the Legal Department, because the said department as ultimate final decision taking authority, would know nothing about the matter and by the time it ultimately comes to know about the same, and decision to file appeal is taken, it is indeed too late in a day causing great delay in filing appeals, etc. It is for these reasons that P.P./ G.P. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. Otherwise, he would also be personally liable to pay for the cost from his personal pocket. We firmly believe that unless and until the concerned P.P. and G.P. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once again, no doubt, our views and directions above may perhaps sound little extraordinary and disagreeable to some technocrats, but at the same time having regard to the peculiar recurring facts, faults wherein the concerned departments all these years have not woken up to the cause and alarm and accordingly indeed shown any concern worth-name whatsoever in the matter of delays in filing appeals, applications, etc., and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P.Ps. and G.Ps., quite undermining the ultimate public interest and cause of justice, we have in the public interest ventured to prescribe some useful guidelines to P.Ps. and G.Ps. only with a view to see that even inadvertently they don't be a party working against the promise of speedy justice in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and public revenue. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.s & G.P.s, but since we also cannot stand harm to the Court management and ultimate cause of speedy justice, as a last resort as a stop-gap arrangement, till the time the Government frames, amends rules on the above lines, our views, directions shall stand, prevail as commanding rule to all concerned with all consequential accountability it entails, over-riding relevant rules under the Law Officers Rules, if any, contrary to our above directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this judgment, in the first instance to the Secretary, Legal Department, who in his turn shall do the needful to circulate the same within 30 days to (i) all the Law Officers of the State; (ii) its own concern Branches where its officials deal with screening and processing proposals, opinion in the matter of appeals, revision, applications, etc. etc. In the second instance, while appointing new Public Prosecutors to supply a copy of the said judgment and circulars to them also. In the third instance, to regularly monitor whether the directions given in this judgment are duly complied with or not and in the fourth instance, shall add, amend, Law Officers Rules by incorporating the above guidelines; (2) All Secretaries of various Departments, and (3) All the District Magistrates of the State, for information and necessary action. The Secretary, Legal Department and other Secretaries of the State are also further directed to report back the compliance of this Order at the earliest and preferably on or before 16th June, 1996, and on receipt of the same, shall be placed before this Bench Coram : K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri, JJ.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)1GLR260',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '743908'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 3 => 'Constitutional',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 5 => 'the N.D.P.S. Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution',
		(int) 9 => 'Food Adulteration Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 11 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 12 => 'the Law Officers Rules',
		(int) 13 => 'the Law Officers'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'K.J. Vaidya',
		(int) 1 => 'Misc',
		(int) 2 => 'Singh v. Chief of',
		(int) 3 => 'Rule',
		(int) 4 => 'H.N. Jagiwala',
		(int) 5 => 'Misc',
		(int) 6 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 7 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 8 => 'Pleader',
		(int) 9 => 'Law',
		(int) 10 => 'Government Pleader',
		(int) 11 => 'P.P./ G.P.',
		(int) 12 => 'justice.10',
		(int) 13 => 'Law Officers Rules',
		(int) 14 => 'Order'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'A.P.P.s',
		(int) 2 => 'addressee'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '18 days',
		(int) 1 => '1994(2',
		(int) 2 => '1577',
		(int) 3 => '1995',
		(int) 4 => '1990',
		(int) 5 => '1995',
		(int) 6 => 'years',
		(int) 7 => 'every year',
		(int) 8 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 9 => 'two months',
		(int) 10 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 11 => 'these days',
		(int) 12 => 'daily',
		(int) 13 => 'daily',
		(int) 14 => 'every year',
		(int) 15 => 'further year',
		(int) 16 => 'every year',
		(int) 17 => 'daily',
		(int) 18 => 'some day',
		(int) 19 => 'last about 36 years',
		(int) 20 => 'Every year',
		(int) 21 => 'the very same day',
		(int) 22 => 'seven days',
		(int) 23 => 'the period of seven days',
		(int) 24 => '1993',
		(int) 25 => 'three months',
		(int) 26 => 'all these years',
		(int) 27 => '30 days',
		(int) 28 => '1996'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'State',
		(int) 1 => 'Stale of Gujarat',
		(int) 2 => 'Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Coram',
		(int) 4 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn',
		(int) 5 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 6 => 'L. Naik',
		(int) 7 => 'Army',
		(int) 8 => 'Criminal Appeal',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 11 => 'State',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 15 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 16 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 17 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 18 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 19 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 22 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 23 => 'the Office of the P.P.',
		(int) 24 => 'Government',
		(int) 25 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 26 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 27 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 28 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 29 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 30 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 31 => 'DARSHAN',
		(int) 32 => 'Courts',
		(int) 33 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 34 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 35 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 36 => 'Criminal Application',
		(int) 37 => 'the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders',
		(int) 39 => 'State',
		(int) 40 => 'Finance Department',
		(int) 41 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Public Prosecutors',
		(int) 44 => 'State',
		(int) 45 => 'Court',
		(int) 46 => 'Court',
		(int) 47 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 48 => 'Court',
		(int) 49 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 50 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 51 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 52 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 53 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 54 => 'the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders',
		(int) 55 => 'Departments',
		(int) 56 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 57 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 58 => 'Court',
		(int) 59 => 'Court',
		(int) 60 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 61 => 'Court',
		(int) 62 => 'Court',
		(int) 63 => 'State',
		(int) 64 => 'State',
		(int) 65 => 'the Complainant - Food Inspector',
		(int) 66 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 67 => 'Court',
		(int) 68 => 'Justice',
		(int) 69 => 'Courts',
		(int) 70 => 'Government',
		(int) 71 => 'Court',
		(int) 72 => 'the Office of the District Magistrate',
		(int) 73 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 74 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 75 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 76 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 77 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 78 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 79 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 80 => 'the District Magistrate',
		(int) 81 => 'Court',
		(int) 82 => 'District Magistrates',
		(int) 83 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 84 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 85 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 86 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 87 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 88 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 89 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 90 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 91 => 'the Legal Department',
		(int) 92 => 'P.P.',
		(int) 93 => 'G.P.',
		(int) 94 => 'P.s & G.P.s',
		(int) 95 => 'Court',
		(int) 96 => 'Registry',
		(int) 97 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 98 => 'State',
		(int) 99 => 'Public Prosecutors',
		(int) 100 => 'Departments',
		(int) 101 => 'State',
		(int) 102 => 'Legal Department',
		(int) 103 => 'State',
		(int) 104 => 'K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '637',
		(int) 1 => '605',
		(int) 2 => '23',
		(int) 3 => '625',
		(int) 4 => '375',
		(int) 5 => '2',
		(int) 6 => '16',
		(int) 7 => '19',
		(int) 8 => '29',
		(int) 9 => '10',
		(int) 10 => '5.',
		(int) 11 => 'only two',
		(int) 12 => 'one',
		(int) 13 => 'about 500 to 600',
		(int) 14 => '200/-',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => '500/-',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '661',
		(int) 19 => '2',
		(int) 20 => '3'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Para 3',
		(int) 1 => 'Para 7',
		(int) 2 => 'Branches'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'third',
		(int) 3 => 'fourth',
		(int) 4 => 'fifth',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'second',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'second',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'second',
		(int) 13 => 'third',
		(int) 14 => 'fourth'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'G.Ps',
		(int) 1 => 'Legal',
		(int) 2 => 'Gujarat',
		(int) 3 => 'G.Ps.',
		(int) 4 => 'G.Ps'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mohanlal Valji'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '743908',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'State of Gujarat',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'State of Gujarat Vs. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question. s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N. 4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. , and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice. , and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-03-26',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' K.J. Vaidya and; M.H. Kadri, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">K.J. Vaidya, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this matter, office has raised the objection that there is a delay of 18 days in filing an acquittal appeal by the State. We have carefully perused the delay condonation application and the grounds mentioned therein causing the said delay. From this, we are indeed quite satisfied that 'sufficient cause' is made out for condoning the delay in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. That takes us to yet one another important question, viz., whether before condoning the delay, it is always necessary to issue notice to the other side? Now, in this regard in view of the decision rendered in the case of Stale of Gujarat v. Ramesh Laxman Chauhan reported in 1994(2) GLR 1577 and thereafter yel another decision of this Court (Coram: K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn. JJ.) rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 637 of 1996 in Criminal Appeal So. 605 of 1995. decided on 23-2-1996, which stands duly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Naik Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff, reported in 1990 SCC (Cri.) 625, we do not deem it necessary to issue Rule to the respondent-accused, before condoning the delay. Accordingly, straightway we condone the delay and direct office to place the appeal, the same being Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1995 on admission board immediately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now, this matter indeed cannot be permitted to simply rest here only, merely by condoning the delay in question, as this Court has unfortunately consistent disturbing enough of experiences of delay in filing appeals, applications and revisions against the impugned judgments and/or orders on some such stock avoidable grounds, where we feel that if indeed the learned P.P.s/A.P.P.s in charge of the case are little efficient and mindful enough of their respective elementary duties, then in that case, not only they should not fail to immediately apply and obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order in time, but should also surely further take reasonable care to see that irrespective of their proposals to challenge the impugned orders they immediately forward their opinion/proposal to the Secretary, Legal Department to take decision at his end, so that without any further loss of time the State can move expeditiously ahead for filing appeal. The anxiety of the Court is that if in a given case the accused have been wrongly acquitted, and they are involved in some serious offences like the one under N.D.P.S. Act, why should they be unnecessarily permitted to be at large for years together by the time matter comes up for admission and thereafter on the final hearing-board Thus, with a view to immediately save the system suffering from its vulnerable relapsing negligence, quite avoidable, which has almost become a chronic disease undermining and crippling the overall interests of social justice, even in extremely serious cases of public importance and further more regarding which there do not appear to be any determined action much less any semblance of action so far taken against the concerned delinquents we, as the Constitutional functionary feel breathlessly constrained to find out some ways and means to combat and eradicate the evil of delay on the one hand unnecessarily delaying and dogging administration of justice frustrating cause of speedy justice, and on the other hand in turn every year adding dead-weight on the public exchequer, where people's money are unnecessarily wastefully squandered away by paying fees for the purpose in lacs to A.P.P.s appearing in such delay condonation applications.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. To understand this, turning precisely to the facts and circumstances of the present case from Para 3 of the application it appears that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal was delivered on 2-12-1994, and the learned A.P.P. applied for the certified copy thereof on the very same day. It was ready for delivery on 16-1-1995 and the same was obtained on 19-1-1995. Thereafter the proposal to file an acquittal appeal came to be forwarded by the learned A.P.P. vide his letter dated 29-3-1995. From this it is quite transparent that for two months and JO days after the certified copy was obtained, nothing was done by the learned A.P.P. Thus the prima facie inaction or remissness on the part of the concerned learned A.P.P. is quite apparent. In our view the act of the learned A.P.I', in applying for the certified copy on the very same day of the pronouncement of the judgment is indeed quite commendable, but that is not enough and certainly did not entitle him to relax thereafter. In fact, he should have indeed been quite quick and watchful enough in the first instance in taking an immediate decision for himself to propose or not to propose the acquittal appeal to the Legal Department, in the second instance. There after irrespective of his opinion whether to propose or not to propose appeal. he ought to have forwarded the copy of the impugned judgment and order to the Legal Department, in the third instance, further in seeing to it that his opinion was sent to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch with all necessary charge-sheet papers and evidence recorded before the Court, in the fourth instance personally supervised over his subordinate staff in seeing that his proposal/opinion was posted to the Legal Department at the earliest despatch, and in the fifth instance be on alert to see that the acknowledgement letter from Legal Department was received in the said regard. This daily, regular practice is required to be religiously followed up to be truly transparent, efficient and accountable Public Prosecutor. To apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order immediately and thereafter to file appeal in time is not the 'be all and end of everything'; as every Public Prosecutor is under the constant Constitutional obligation to act as swiftly as possible to help realize the goal of speedy justice, promised in Article 21 of the Constitution by not wasting time at any stage because of indolence We may further add here from our experience that this sort of lethargy and inefficiency as one noticed in the instant case is gradually making headway practically everywhere gaining momentum where sense of overall public duty and accountability is found gradually thrown to winds and vanishing This is quite alarming and upsetting. The reason perhaps is, in Government nobody bothers to do anything unless compelled Public interest and overall accountability these days none bothers about much to take care of unnecessarily inviting, costing displeasures and reactions from the concerned delinquents disturbing their easy way of the least resistance placid life. In fact, there are number of cases which Government lose entirely because of such outright negligence and default committed by the concerned P.P./A.P.P. (in some given cases where Government do not provide adequate staff to the Office of the P.P.) and yet there is none to monitor their work, audit and take account of their work, as if 'NO ACCOUNTABILITY' is the character and characteristic of the Government administration. The department under which such Public Prosecutors are working has as if lost its salt and mattle to control, regulate and if the need be to sack them from their services. Under the circumstances, unless and until some accountability at all stages is statutorily fixed upon the concerned officers, public work is not going to make any headway. In fact even fixing of accountability by itself is not going to help, save, salvage the situation any further unless the higher-ups in the concerned department also in their respective turn understand importance of efficiency, of the precious public time and also otherwise the resultant detrimental effect of wasting time in deliverance of goods, reliefs to the people for whom they are manning the public administration, and accordingly on the one hand firmly and absolutely resolve to take stern departmental action against the erring inefficient delinquents, and on the other hand, in cases where the delay, inefficiency is for want of adequale siaff. 10 provide the same at the earliest !</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To meet with the delay in question in the instant case. Mr. H.N. Jagiwala the learned A.P.P., has filed an affidavit in support of this application for condonation of the delay. Therein it is stated that the said delay has taken place because of paucity of staff. According to the learned A.P.P., in his office there are only two Junior Clerks and that they are over-burdened with work. Now, if this grievance is true and genuine, it should be voiced by the learned A.P.P. before his higher-ups and it would be indeed the duty of such higher-ups to attend to such grievances in their right earnest. Anyway, as far as giving of opinion and thereafter forwarding the same to the Legal Department is concerned that cannot be said to be a difficult task if the learned A.P.P. was indeed conscious enough of his primary duty and the accountability arising there from. For doing this little work, in our opinion, paucity of staff can never be a problem. What was required to be done was, the moment the copy of judgment and order of acquittal was received by the learned P.P., he ought to have immediately gone through it and found out infirmities in grounds for acquittal and prepared the proposal. What was further required to be done by him was that he ought to have looked to his diary daily and found out there from whether in the first instance he had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and in the second instance, whether he had forwarded the proposal or not. Daily diaries should be used as constant reminder. To avoid negligence and be ever punctual, disciplined and accountable every public servant must religiously 'DARSHAN' daily diary and that the P.Ps. and G.Ps. are not and indeed cannot be exception to this ! Not doing such simple things and taking convenient and totally unbelievable shelter all times behind such covers as of want of staff, pressure of work, papers mixed up and lost with other papers cannot mislead, before Courts all times to come. Accordingly, in every case which the P.P. conducts, he has to personally supervise and must see to it that at the earliest despatch his proposal/opinion leaves the office to reach the addressee, in Legal Department at Gandhinagar to enable it to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree at the earliest without losing any time. This is his unquestionable Constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If this much quite simple and yet important care is not taken, such spinned out grounds as the one taken in the present case of paucity of staff will not be of any assistance in all cases, rather for such palpably false grounds the learned A.P.P. may and can be held further accountable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In fact, our further experience so far as delay condonation applications in criminal matters are concerned, taking quite conservative estimate, roughly it appears that about 500 to 600 such applications are filed every year on some such stock-grounds. Same is the story and rough and ready estimate in civil matters also. Now, in every Misc. Criminal Application filed for condonation of delay, the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P., we are informed, is paid Rs. 200/- per matter. Thus, the approximate financial burden by way of fees on the public exchequer comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- every year !! If this much amount can be saved, from it at least some office of the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders in the State can be provided with some more clerks and other facilities thereby adding to their efficiency and also giving employment to many needy persons standing in queue. Not only this but the matters wherein the accused persons are tried for the alleged serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act or Bride-burning. Bride-killing. Dowry-death, etc. etc.. if there is unnecessary delay, then by the time, the matter reaches the admission stage. it would take further year or two more, and that would in turn give a cause of serious heart-burning to aggrieved complainant. Likewise, in civil matters also, every delay would further burden the public exchequer with recurring interest on the decretal amount. This can run into crores of rupees every year. Thus, such sort of delays' remissness being strictly and grossly and against not only the public revenue, public interest but also against Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be tolerated even for a while. It is simply shocking and disturbing as to how indeed it has not struck the Government in particular Secretary, Finance Department and Secretary, Legal Department, so far to get rid of this sticky pastering problem of delay in they? instance unnecessarily eating away the vital public revenue and in the second instance offending Article 21 of the Constitution, by giving suitable direction in the matter taking care of public revenue, and the ultimate interests of justice !! The problem involved indeed being of quite great public importance of daily recurrence, we just can't sit merely grumbling, castigating the Government with its inefficiency to control the situation, or wait till the time Government take some steps at least paper-steps (!) some day in the direction. The curse of delays in filing appeal, etc. is dogging our High Court since last about 36 years. Nothing has been done so far. Every year the appeals, revisions, etc., are filed, question of delay raised, delay condonation applications are filed supported by affidavit. This circle goes on and on mechanically, without any officers of Government ever applying and thinking as to what is the wrong, how, where, why and what accordingly needs to be done to stem the unhappy situation to find out solution. The problem of delay at any stage is indeed quite formidable problem in the way of efficient Court management and speedy justice ! This is where and why we are required to wake up all concerned. In this view of the matter, let the concerned Public Prosecutors and for that purpose, even Government Pleaders of the State and/or any other persons concerned with processing appeal, revision papers, in any department take notice that henceforth, if it is found that it was only wholly or partly because of them that the delay in question has taken place, then this Court and for that purpose any other competent Court will take a serious view of the matter ! Not only that, but it will be simply a misconduct on his part and in appropriate case, the concerned Public Prosecutor or the Government Pleader or any other person whosoever is responsible in delaying the matter in absence of reasonable explanation will be asked to pay costs upto any amount not less than Rs. 500/- from his own personal pocket, ultimately to be remitted in account of free legal aid. This would be irrespective of the fact whether delay is condoned or not ! Once you delay in filing and as a result. State machinery is unnecessarily not only made to work but where P.P./G.P. are to be paid fees wasting further the precious time of the Court, erring officers must pay cost and pay cost from their own pockets. This, in a way, is the inefficiency-tax, cost and punishment for delaying and defying the promise of 'speedy justice' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. We make it absolutely clear that whether the Public Prosecutor or for that purpose even the Government Pleader is of the opinion to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree or not, that is immaterial, but he must in the first instance apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order on the very same day or at the earliest date thereafter, not beyond seven days, and thereafter in the second instance, forward the same at the earliest despatch to the ultimate decision taking authority, viz. Secretary, Legal Department at Gandhinagar. Not to apply for the certified copy immediately and/or at least within the period of seven days in absence of reasonable explanation, and thereafter to immediately forward the same to the Secretary, Legal Department, would be treated as gross misconduct by the learned P.P. /Government Pleader in charge of the case, for which the Legal Department must take a stern action and, if need be, first warn and thereafter if he repeats his misconduct, dismiss him after hearing him. We quite well know that by and large the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders in charge of the cases and thereafter at the level of Legal and other Departments also some employees are indeed quite honest, sincere, efficient and hardworking and accordingly apply for the certified copy of the impugned judgment in time and process the papers immediately. For such noble and responsible P.P., G.P., and all others we have indeed full respects, any way the observations made and directions given in this judgment are meant for only those few inefficient, incorrigible delinquents, who are not in the mood and habit of discharging their duties honestly, sincerely, efficiently and with a sense of responsibility, which in many cases can prove to be highly prejudicial, detrimental to the public interests and ultimate cause of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. At this stage, we make it clear that whenever the Court finds delay in filing matters before the Court, and for that purpose makes some observations about the negligence and inaction of the concerned P.P./Officer as the case may be, this will not be treated as ground for not condoning the delay. This is a separate issue by itself, and accordingly, despite the negligence of the concerned P.P., etc., the Court can and must condone the delay in overall interests of justice as held by this Court in decision rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Valji, reported in 1993 (1) GLH 661. In this regard, it is indeed worthwhile to quote from relevant Para 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Now, assuming for the sake of argument only that the State is an agency distinct from the Complainant - Food Inspector, and further since the present acquittal appeal is filed by it only, the period of limitation prescribed in law should be three months, then even merely because there is some delay in filing the appeal because of certain 'none too difficult to appreciate and understand circumstances', namely, the red-tapism, negligence arising out of some impersonal attitude or lack of efficiency, pressure of work or in a given case some corruption, extra-influences, nepotism, etc., of the public servant for not expeditiously sending the proposal to the Legal Department, then even, looking to the overall 'public interest' involved in this case, namely, the prosecution against the respondent being under Food Adulteration Act, a public-welfare legislation in the larger and absolute interest of the health of the people at large, the delay, if any, at all is required to be condoned, beyond any manner of doubt. The Court while dealing and deciding the cases of socio-economic offences can never be permitted to set them at naught merely on the ground of some hyper-technicalities. As to do so is neither the Law nor the Justice nor the manner in which the Courts are expected to do the Justice. Barring few exceptions, it is an open secret that by and large the Government administration does not feel the pulse of the people, it lacks the much needed public-orientation, commitment to the public cause, etc. These hard fails and the necked truth, one may like it or not but is often noticed in the body politics of very public administration and this aspect has got to be borne in mind. We do come across number of such cases wherein despite its urgency and importance of the issues and problems involved touching upon the public causes they are dealt with by the administrative personnel in a manner as if they are dealing with some dry and dead papers feeling no pulse or heart-beats of public care, hopes, aspirations, dreams, urges and prayers for relief and redressal contained in it. When such is the situation, in a die-hard bureaucratic set up, except some few rays of hope, it will be too much to expect efficiency in the public-administration. The question is: 'Can under such circumstances, the public cause he penalized and allowed to suffer because of some unavoidable delays caused by servants'? or 'Can the social piece of Legislation be permitted to be frustrated at the hands of inefficient administration'? It is under such circumstances that if the pragmatic view of the problem is not taken then howsoever laudable object the particular Act may have, the same will not reach the intended goal as over and above the ordinary breakers of law. on its procedural path there are obstructive elements like inactive and inefficient public servants. It may also be observed that if the public servant has conducted himself inefficiently in a casual way to the detriment of the public interest by delaying the filing of the appeal or revision before the Court, this indeed being a very serious thing, he deserves to be deparimentally inquired and proceeded with, but then this is altogether a different issue and cannot be permitted to over-shadow the public cause of not getting the matter decided on merits because of some delay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have also observed in number of such cases that because the matter is routed through the Office of the District Magistrate, that also takes considerable time, and in the result, the matter gets unnecessarily delayed. In our opinion, the District Magistrate may be the head of the District. But so far as the proposal to file acquittal appeal is concerned, the Public Prosecutor is the only and whole and sole authority to have his final say (in filing appeal) and once he opines that appeal against the acquittal is to be filed, he owes duty straight to the Legal Department, and if at all the District Magistrate has to be informed, only the copy of the said proposal and letter be sent to him. Thus far and not further. In fact, under no circumstances, the proposal is required to be routed through the District Magistrate, as he has indeed no authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to alter, modify or refuse the proposal to file acquittal appeal which further because of the bottlenecks in his office, results in unnecessary delay in the matter. In this view of the matter, if there are any rules which come in the way of the Public Prosecutor in contemplating straight action with the Legal Department then such rule is required to be scrapped, and if not scrapped, we hereby declare the same to have been scrapped. Any attempt hereafter to forward the proposal to file acquittal appeal through the District Magistrate will be considered as undermining the order of this Court, which would be viewed very seriously. Let this be known to all District Magistrates, Public Prosecutors, Government Pleaders and all others involved in the process of filing appeals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Incidentally, whatever we have observed regarding the duty of the Public Prosecutor in applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and forward his opinion one way or the other immediately, also applies to the Government Pleaders in Court. He, likewise the Public Prosecutor is equally duty-bound and accountable, and accordingly, if he does not apply for the certified copy in time, he would stand equally liable as Public Prosecutor as stated hereinabove. The Government Pleader is also duty-bound 10 expeditiously forward his opinion and proposal to file appeal/revision (as the case may be) against the judgment, order and decree, straightway to the Secretary. Legal Department to save the precious public time and public interest involved. Because ultimately it is his opinion to file appeal which the Legal Department is ordinarily bound to accept. If Government Pleader is of the view that no appeal deserves to be filed, then even this opinion should also be invariably forwarded at once to the Legal Department so that in case the Government wants to file appeal, it can file in time. In cases wherein the P.P. and G.P. are of the opinion not to challenge the impugned judgment and order/decree, then even such opinion is required to be forwarded at once to the Legal Department, because the said department as ultimate final decision taking authority, would know nothing about the matter and by the time it ultimately comes to know about the same, and decision to file appeal is taken, it is indeed too late in a day causing great delay in filing appeals, etc. It is for these reasons that P.P./ G.P. should be prompt enough in despatching their opinion for filing as well as not filing appeals. Otherwise, he would also be personally liable to pay for the cost from his personal pocket. We firmly believe that unless and until the concerned P.P. and G.P. is properly screwed up and fitted in the administration of justice, their loose, willy-nilly attitude in a given case can prove to be disastrous to the very antethesis of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Once again, no doubt, our views and directions above may perhaps sound little extraordinary and disagreeable to some technocrats, but at the same time having regard to the peculiar recurring facts, faults wherein the concerned departments all these years have not woken up to the cause and alarm and accordingly indeed shown any concern worth-name whatsoever in the matter of delays in filing appeals, applications, etc., and further wherein in good many cases the root cause is few irresponsible P.Ps. and G.Ps., quite undermining the ultimate public interest and cause of justice, we have in the public interest ventured to prescribe some useful guidelines to P.Ps. and G.Ps. only with a view to see that even inadvertently they don't be a party working against the promise of speedy justice in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and public revenue. We have indeed no special charm in framing the rules and regulations charting the conduct for P.s & G.P.s, but since we also cannot stand harm to the Court management and ultimate cause of speedy justice, as a last resort as a stop-gap arrangement, till the time the Government frames, amends rules on the above lines, our views, directions shall stand, prevail as commanding rule to all concerned with all consequential accountability it entails, over-riding relevant rules under the Law Officers Rules, if any, contrary to our above directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Registry is directed to immediately forward a copy of this judgment, in the first instance to the Secretary, Legal Department, who in his turn shall do the needful to circulate the same within 30 days to (i) all the Law Officers of the State; (ii) its own concern Branches where its officials deal with screening and processing proposals, opinion in the matter of appeals, revision, applications, etc. etc. In the second instance, while appointing new Public Prosecutors to supply a copy of the said judgment and circulars to them also. In the third instance, to regularly monitor whether the directions given in this judgment are duly complied with or not and in the fourth instance, shall add, amend, Law Officers Rules by incorporating the above guidelines; (2) All Secretaries of various Departments, and (3) All the District Magistrates of the State, for information and necessary action. The Secretary, Legal Department and other Secretaries of the State are also further directed to report back the compliance of this Order at the earliest and preferably on or before 16th June, 1996, and on receipt of the same, shall be placed before this Bench Coram : K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri, JJ.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)1GLR260',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Ratilal Laljibhai Tandel and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '743908'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Constitutional, Constitutional, Article 21 of the Constitution, Constitutional, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the N.D.P.S. Act, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Article 21 of the Constitution, Article 21 of the Constitution, Food Adulteration Act, the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Law Officers Rules, the Law Officers

PERSON: K.J. Vaidya, Misc, Singh v. Chief of, Rule, H.N. Jagiwala, Misc, Pleader, Pleader, Pleader, Law, Government Pleader, P.P./ G.P., justice.10, Law Officers Rules, Order

NORP: J.1, A.P.P.s, addressee

DATE: 18 days, 1994(2, 1577, 1995, 1990, 1995, years, every year, the very same day, two months, the very same day, these days, daily, daily, every year, further year, every year, daily, some day, last about 36 years, Every year, the very same day, seven days, the period of seven days, 1993, three months, all these years, 30 days, 1996

ORG: State, Stale of Gujarat, Court, Coram, K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadn, the Supreme Court, L. Naik, Army, Criminal Appeal, Court, Legal Department, State, Court, A.P.P., A.P.P., A.P.P., A.P.P., the Legal Department, the Legal Department, the Legal Department, Court, the Legal Department, Legal Department, the Office of the P.P., Government, A.P.P., A.P.P., A.P.P., the Legal Department, A.P.P., P.P., DARSHAN, Courts, P.P., Legal Department, A.P.P., Criminal Application, the Public Prosecutor/A.G.P., the Public Prosecutors/Government Pleaders, State, Finance Department, Legal Department, Court, Public Prosecutors, State, Court, Court, Public Prosecutor, Court, the Public Prosecutor, Legal Department, Legal Department, P.P., the Legal Department, the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders, Departments, P.P., G.P., Court, Court, P.P., Court, Court, State, State, the Complainant - Food Inspector, the Legal Department, Court, Justice, Courts, Government, Court, the Office of the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor, the Legal Department, the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor, the Legal Department, the District Magistrate, Court, District Magistrates, the Public Prosecutor, the Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor, Legal Department, the Legal Department, the Legal Department, P.P., G.P., the Legal Department, P.P., G.P., P.s & G.P.s, Court, Registry, Legal Department, State, Public Prosecutors, Departments, State, Legal Department, State, K.J. Vaidya & M.H. Kadri

CARDINAL: 637, 605, 23, 625, 375, 2, 16, 19, 29, 10, 5., only two, one, about 500 to 600, 200/-, two, 500/-, 1, 661, 2, 3

PRODUCT: Para 3, Para 7, Branches

ORDINAL: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, first, second, second, first, second, first, first, second, third, fourth

GPE: G.Ps, Legal, Gujarat, G.Ps., G.Ps

FAC: Mohanlal Valji