Bombay HC Refuses to Condon 650-Day Delay in ACB Appeal, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost
In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Bombay High Court declined to condone a 650-day delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal in a Prevention of Corruption Act case. The court also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Yavatmal district, while dismissing the State's plea.
Justice Mahendra Nerlikar, presiding over a Single-Judge Bench at the Nagpur seat, observed that the Department of Law and Judiciary (DLJ) must function independently, free from pressure exerted by other State departments. The court noted that the DLJ had initially denied permission to file the appeal in January 2024, deeming the case unfit for appeal.
Despite this, the ACB continued to pursue the matter through senior officers, urging the DLJ to reconsider and grant leave. Permission was eventually granted in July 2025, but with a caveat. The DLJ's communication dated July 15, 2025, stated that the 'instructions for filing of appeal is issued only at the department's risk, cost and consequences.'
The court highlighted that the State failed to explain why it took from August 2023 to July 2025 — a period of at least 1.7 years — to decide whether an appeal should be filed. Justice Nerlikar observed that the DLJ bears a higher degree of responsibility in scrutinising proposals for proceedings before courts.
The judge remarked, 'The action of directing to file frivolous appeal increased the pendency of this Court and is directly responsible for slowing down the delivery of justice.' He further noted that the delay in examining the application and the lack of bona fides were not justified by the nature of the case.
The court also rejected the State's argument that the delay was attributable to departmental negligence, pointing to the DLJ's own communication. Concluding that the delay and lack of bona fides did not merit condonation, Justice Nerlikar dismissed the appeal application.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's vigilance against frivolous litigation and its emphasis on accountability of State departments. The decision serves as a reminder that procedural delays and internal departmental pressures cannot be grounds for bypassing judicial scrutiny.
