Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad vs Purushottam Reddy

The appeal is sought to be filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor questioning the orders of acquittal passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in SC No.69 of 1995 on 28-6-1996, and Crl. MP No.5163 of 1997 is filed for condoning the delay of 337 days involved in presenting the said appeal.

The respondent herein was the accused in SC 69 of 1995 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and after the trial of the case was over, the accused was acquitted by the Judgment dated 28-6-1996. Subsequently the State has chosen to file the present Appeal on 17-9-1997 against the orders of acquittal. As there was delay of 337 days involved in filing the appeal, the State has filed Crl. MP 5163 of 1997 for condoning such delay. The petition for condoning the delay is supported by an affidavit given by the Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Secunderabad. The reasons urged in the affidavit for such delay are that after the judgment was pronounced on 28-6-1996 by the lower Court, a copy application was made for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on 1-7-1996 in copy application No.5900 of 1996 and copy stamps were called for on 19-7-1996 and the copies were delivered on the same day and the judgment copy was submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City for obtaining opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor and after the permission was obtained, the appeal was filed on 17-9-1997 and that the delay is not intentional and the delay may be condoned.

Notice was issued to the respondent/accused in the said petition filed for condoning the delay and the respondent is represented by an Advocate. Heard both sides.

The contention of the respondent is that the copy application bearing No.5900 of 1996 referred to in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector does not relate to any copy application filed on behalf of the State, that the said copy application was filed by the accused and certified copy was obtained on 19-7-1996 and the Sub-Inspector has obtained a xerox copy of the said certified copy of the Judgment which was taken from him and later on filed the present application with false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also produced the original certified copy given by the lower Court to the accused in Copy Application No.5900 of 1996 and it is clear from the said certified copy of the judgment of the lower Court that the copy application 5900 of 1996, which is referred to in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector of Police was filed only by the accused seeking certified copy from the lower Court and not on behalf of the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that the Sub-Inspector of Begumpet Police Station, who has given the affidavit in support of the petition has give a false affidavit knowing fully well that such affidavit is false. It is quite reprehensible on the part of the Sub-Inspector to give a such false affidavit to mislead the Court with a view to obtain condonation of delay. The reasons urged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay are blatantly false. The Sub-Inspector of Police has evidently obtained a xerox copy of the certified copy of the judgment delivered to the accused in CA No.5900 of 1996 and filed the same along with the appeal. It is quite evident that no copy application was filed on behalf of the State for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment of the lower Court for the purpose of preferring the appeal and the xerox copy of the certified copy of the judgment enclosed to the appeal memorandum, which bears copy application No.5900 of 1996, does not refer to any certified copy of the judgment obtained by the prosecution as mentioned in the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case where the petition filed for condonation of delay can be allowed and there are no merits in the petition.

It is evident from the above said circumstances that the then Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Secunderabad by name K. Vijaya Singh s/o K. Kishan Singh has chosen to give a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding knowing it to be false, with a view to mislead the Court by making such false allegations for the purpose of explaining the delay and seeking condonation of such delay in filing the appeal, which may amount to an offence under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, In view of these circumstances, the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is directed to file a complaint u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the then Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Secunderabad by name K. Vijaya Singh s/o K. Kishan Singh, who gave such false affidavit, for the offences under Sections 191 to 193 IPC before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.5163 of 1997 is dismissed with the above said directions and the appeal is rejected as barred by limitation.