w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



State of Bihar v/s Durga Pd. Saha


Company & Directors' Information:- PD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2011PTC221370

Company & Directors' Information:- SAHA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA1991PTC012267

    Govt.Appeal 33 Of 1988

    Decided On, 21 March 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRASAD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE REKHA KUMARI

    For the Appearing Parties: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Yogesh Chandra Verma, Balmiki Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) This Govt. appeal against acquittal of respondents, namely, Durga Pd. Saha, Lalit Chandra Shaha and Rajesh Kumar Saha, along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a prayer to condone the delay in filing this appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 1 Durga Pd. Saha was tried for offences under Sections 376, 302, and 201 I. P. C. and respondents 2 and 3, namely, Lalit Chandra Saha and Rajesh Kumar Saha, were tried for the offences under Section 201 I. P. C. only in Sessions Trial No. 296/82. On consideration and appreciation of the evidences on record, learned trial Court, i.e., Sri Kashi Nath Roy, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, finding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove and establish the charges against the aforesaid respondents found them not guilty and acquitted them for the above charges.

(3.) Leave for filing this Govt. appeal was granted vide order dated 16-8-1988 condoning delay in filing the same subject to the objections, if any, that may be taken by the respondents at the subsequent stage after they appear in appeal. Now, as the respondents have raised objections as to filing of this appeal after a delay of 183 days, i.e., six months and three days, we have heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents and Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad learned A. P. P. for the appellant-State of Bihar.

(4.) Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma learned Sr. counsel for the respondents contended that this Govt. Appeal has been filed after a long delay of 183 days, i.e., six months and three days and the appellant State of Bihar has not been able to show sufficient or good cause so as to satisfy this Court that the appellant had such sufficient or good cause for not preferring this appeal within the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed in Entry 114 of Schedule of Limitation Act. The contention is that as the appellant-State of Bihar has not been able to show sufficient or good cause so as to satisfy this Court that the appellant had sufficient or good cause for not preferring this appeal within the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under the Act, this Govt. Appeal is fit to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

(5.) As against this, Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad learned A. P. P. for the appellant-State of Bihar though not disputed delay of 183 days, i.e. six months and three days, in filing this Govt. appeal pointed out that the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division sent proposal to Law Department on 23-11-1987 and thereafter Law Department forwarded the same to Additional Advocate General on 10-5-1988 for filing this Govt. appeal and the same was filed on 24-5-1988. The contention of learned A. P. P. is that the delay occurred because the file for obtaining permission of Government had to move from one office to another and not that because appellant State of Bihar was not vigilant in filing appeal in time. Learned A. P. P. also pointed out that the copy of the judgment was sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur to the District Magistrate on 24-9-1987, i.e., after one month of date of judgment of acquittal.

(6.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides we shall proceed to examine whether the appellant State of Bihar has been able to show sufficient or good cause so as to satisfy this Court that the appellant State of Bihar had sufficient or good cause for not preferring this appeal within the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed in Entry 114 of Schedule of the Act.

(7.) The plea of limitation ordinarily involves mixed question of fact and law and it is also settled principle of law that each case is to be decided on its own facts. Certainly, the facts are always the basis on which law may be applied. When we take into consideration the facts of the instant case we find no dispute that this govt. appeal appears to have been filed after 183 days, i.e. six months and three days. If on such facts the provisions of law as laid down under Section 3 of the Act are applied the result would be that this Govt. appeal since preferred after prescribed period of limitation by law shall have to be dismissed by this Court as Section 3 of the Act reads as follows :

"3. Bar of Limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (2) For the purposes of this Act,- (a) A suit is instituted,- (i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; (ii) in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and (iii) in the case of claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator; (b) any claim by way of a set off, or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been - (i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded; (ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in Court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court."

(8.) On a plain reading and true construction of the words used by the Legislature it would appear that the Legislative intent expressed through Section 3 of the Act is that law itself casts a duty upon the Court to dismiss an appeal barred by time although limitation has not been set up as a defence and so if the law laid down under Section 3 of the Act is applied to facts of this case this Govt. appeal, undisputedly barred by time, is fit to be dismissed. Though the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act provide that

"subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence". Section 5 of the Act further provides that "any appeal or an application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period".

As the Govt. appellant has also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act with a prayer to admit this appeal after condoning delay we shall consider whether the appellant-State of Bihar has been able to show sufficient cause so as to condone delay in filing this appeal.

(9.) As per appellant-State of Bihar itself, this appeal is filed after delay of 183 days, i.e., six months and three days. Though the appellant-State of Bihar appears to have stated in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Act that the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, sent proposal for filing this Govt. appeal to Law Department on 23-11-1987 and thereafter Law Department sent the file to Additional Advocate General on 10-5-1988 and the appeal was filed on 24-5-1988, the only cause for not preferring this Govt. appeal within the period of limitation is said to be that the file was under movement. The above facts on record are indicative that the officials of appellant-State of Bihar at every stage were not at all vigilant while dealing with the matter and if such acts attributable to officials of the appellant-State of Bihar are accepted as sufficient cause it may amount to encourage them not to be vigilant. The facts further indicate that either the officials had no knowledge that law prescribed limit of time within which this Govt. appeal was to be filed or, perhaps, it was in the minds of the officials that law of limitation does not apply in cases of Govt. appeal. It is settled principle of law that laws aid the vigilant and not those who slumber. The acts of Govt. Officials in this case indicate that the govt. officials were never vigilant in dealing with file relating to proposal for filing this Govt. appeal. If such slow motion working of the Govt. officials of the State at every stage is accepted as sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal, then the delay would have to be condoned in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed in filing of appeal in case of State Government shall become a misnomer and so we do not find it safe to accept such delay being result of negligent working of officials of the State Government as sufficient cause. The proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court and delay cannot be condoned as a m

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

atter of judicial generosity and as the appellant-State of Bihar has not been able to show sufficient or good cause in preferring this appeal after the period of limitation we are of the view that this is not a fit case in which delay in filing appeal be condoned. (10.) Taking into consideration the facts on record and also applying law on such facts, we are of the view that the appellant State of Bihar has not been able to show sufficient cause for not preferring this Govt. appeal within the period of limitation and, as such, this Govt. appeal is barred by limitation of 183 days, i.e. six months and three days and we reject the petition filed under Section 5 of the Act for condoning delay in filing this Govt. appeal and as a result this Govt. appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. (11.) Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad learned A. P. P. appearing for the appellant-State of Bihar for needful. Appeal dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

10-09-2020 P.D. Vinay Versus Conica Shambaya High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Manoj Kumar Saha @ Manoj Kumar Sah Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise & Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 Union of India Versus P.D. Sunny & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Pushpak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Goutam Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Bidyut Kumar Saha Versus Tapa Saha High Court of Tripura
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo Versus IPSITA Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo, West Bengal Versus IPSITA Saha, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Neeta Saha, Member of Suspended Board of Palm Developers Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Versus Ram Niwas Gupta (Proprietor of Ram Niwas Gupta & sons), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Kaushik Saha Versus The Genaral Manager, SBI & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Versus On Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-02-2020 Lipika Dey (Saha) Versus Babul Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Bijali Saha & Another Versus Riman Saha High Court of Tripura
06-02-2020 State of Kerala, Rep. by The District Collector, Idukki & Another Versus P.D. Raveendran & Another High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 Debasish Saha Versus Godrej Properties Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Pankaj Behari Saha V/S The State of Tripura, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
17-01-2020 Monotosh Saha Versus Sanjit Thakurata & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-01-2020 Bibhas Saha & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-01-2020 Debasish Saha & Others Versus Godrej Properties Limited & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-12-2019 P.D. Sudheeshkumar Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
22-11-2019 Santi Swaasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Iti Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Debdas Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Saha Versus UCO Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-11-2019 M/s. Oriental Kuries Ltd. Represented By Its Chairman P.D. Jose Versus Lissa & Others Supreme Court of India
30-09-2019 Goutam Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-09-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-09-2019 Shibani Saha & Another Versus Subhasish Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2019 M/s. Aridipa Enterprise Rep. by its partner, Soma Basu Versus Partha Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2019 M/s. Bose Enterprise Rep. by Rana Basu & Another Versus Chayanika Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-08-2019 Jagannath Saha @ Rinku Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-08-2019 Bikash Kr. Saha Versus The Branch Manager, Muragachha, Dharmada CCC West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-08-2019 Sukanta Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-07-2019 Kishori Mohan Sinha alias Singha Versus Kumaresh Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2019 Debabrata Dutta Versus Joy Gopal Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2019 Abir Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2019 P.D. Mathew Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Principal Secretary Transport, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-07-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Kabita Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-07-2019 Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manabendra Saha Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2019 Ranjit Kumar Sarkar Versus Pew Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2019 Union of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Others Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha & Another Supreme Court of India
06-06-2019 P.D. Versus U.W. High Court of Delhi
31-05-2019 Sribash Chandra Saha & Others Versus Rubber Board & Others High Court of Tripura
29-05-2019 Sushmita Saha Versus M/s. Amarpali Property Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Nandini Bala Saha Versus Dr. M. Pramanik & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-05-2019 Sanjukta Saha & Others Versus Chandana Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-05-2019 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-04-2019 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. DLF Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2019 M/s. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Soumen Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-04-2019 Siemens Limited Seethakathi Business Centre, Rep by its Manager - PD LD Project Management Gurubaran Senthurpandian, Chennai Versus M/s. Marg Limited, having its Registered Office at “Marg Axis”, 4/138, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2019 Bhajan Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
29-03-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Susmita Saha High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Tapas Dey Versus Aronjit Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-03-2019 Bhelupada Saha @ Velupada Saha Versus Prahallad Ghosh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-02-2019 Dr. Prasanta Saha Versus Pritam Sarkar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2019 The Station Master, Berhampore Court Station P.O. & P.S. & Others Versus Aditya Kumar Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2019 Sumit Kumar Saha Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-01-2019 Sangita Saha Versus Abhijit Saha & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2019 Dipak Kumar Saha Versus Bandhan Bild Con. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2019 Bhajan Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2019 Partha Sarathi Saha (Proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Automobiles) Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Delhi
07-12-2018 Union of India Versus Col.(Ts) P.D. Poonekar Supreme Court of India
28-11-2018 Sanjib Saha & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2018 Sanjoy Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-11-2018 Biltu Saha & Others Versus The Union of India, Through the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-10-2018 Soma Saha Versus Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd. High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2018 Mandira Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-09-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Uttam Kr. Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
19-09-2018 Jayanta Saha, Kolkata Versus Dcit, Circle - 25, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
18-09-2018 Mobile Store Versus Subal Saha & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
14-09-2018 Kamal Saha Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-09-2018 Anand Kumar Saraogi & Another Versus Amitamoyee Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-08-2018 Milon Roy Chowdhury Versus Ashis Kumar Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-08-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Ashim Kumar Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-08-2018 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Saha Versus Ombir Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
08-08-2018 Suman Saha Versus Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-08-2018 Archana Roy (Saha) & Others Versus Sanjib Bhattacharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-07-2018 Mani Saha Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospital & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2018 Paramita Saha (Nandi) Versus Birangshu Narayan Dash Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Debabrata Saha Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dulali Saha & Others High Court of Tripura
03-07-2018 Sukumar Sutradhar & Another Versus Sanjoy Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-06-2018 Sanjib Ratan Saha Versus The Institute of Cost Accountant of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-06-2018 Dr. Arindam Butt Versus Manoj Kumar Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-06-2018 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus Susmita Bhowmik & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-05-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihir Lal Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-05-2018 P.D. Nanjegowda Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
16-05-2018 Manager, Bank of Baroda Jodhpur Park Branch Versus Susanta Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-04-2018 Gopal Saha Versus Anil Roy Chowdhury & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-04-2018 Dr. Anirban Jana, Medical Officer, Kasturi District Hospital Versus Kamal Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2018 Sunipa Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
19-03-2018 Sima Saha Versus Prabir Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
15-03-2018 Rama Saha Versus M/s. Dream Dwellings & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-02-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sumit Kumar Saha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-02-2018 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. D.L.F. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-02-2018 Union of India Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha High Court of Gauhati
02-02-2018 Dr. Kunal Saha & Another Versus Principal Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta