The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 272 days in filing a Revision Petition by the State in a case of murder and held that if the delay which stood explained by the State was not condoned, it might cause great injustice to the victim.

The State had approached the High Court, by filing a revision petition under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking setting aside of the order passed by the Sessions Court discharging the respondent in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The application before the High Court was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the present revision petition.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “...the allegations against the respondent, in relation to which the captioned revision petition has been filed, are very serious i.e. pertaining to offence of murder, in which charge stands framed against all co-accused persons…”

Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the Petitioner-State while Advocate M.A. Inayati represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the State that the present petition before the High Court could not be filed within the stipulated period as the file pertaining to the present case had to pass through the various authorities. It was only after passing through various channels, that the file of the case along with the opinion regarding the case being fit for challenging the impugned order, was sent to the Department of Law and Justice and Legal Affairs.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noticed that the Supreme Court and the High Court have time and again emphasized that unexplained delay by the State may not be condoned as a matter of right only because it is the State filing a petition, and the delay has to be explained on day-to-day basis. “This Court, therefore, being guided by the said principles, notes that the delay of 272 days in filing the present petition has been explained by the State”, it said.

The Bench noted that the primary allegations against the Respondent were that he had hatched a criminal conspiracy with all the accused persons to kill the victim, and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the respondent had supplied two country-made pistols and 40 live cartridges to co-accused. The said pistols, along with 5 cartridges, were recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the Bench said, “... in case the delay – which stands explained by the State – is not condoned, it may, instead of doing justice, may result in causing great injustice to the victim and to the State in a case of offence of murder.”

“Therefore, while balancing the rights of the accused, who shall get an opportunity to oppose the revision petition filed by the State and argue that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity, and the right of the State to challenge an order of discharge of an accused in a case of murder, and taking into account the factors which caused the delay in filing the revision petition, and also remaining cognizant of the larger interest of the community and society in a case of heinous offence as murder, this Court is inclined to allow the application filed by the State for condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the present revision petition”, it held.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by condoning the delay of 272 days in filing the revision petition.

Cause Title: The State (Gnct of Delhi) v. Shakeel Ahmed @ Durrani (Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 502)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, Insp Pankaj Gulliya

Respondent: Advocates M.A. Inayati, Shoaib Khan

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta SharmaIndian Penal CodeArms ActCode of Criminal Procedure

Tulip Kanth