Introduction:

In a recent case before the Calcutta High Court, the conduct of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its Director came under severe scrutiny. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, on a plea for condonation of delay in filing a special leave to appeal, criticized the CBI’s sluggishness and emphasized the need for diligence in crucial matters. The case involved an appeal against the acquittal of six accused in a fraud case against Canara Bank, with the CBI seeking condonation for a delay of 1452 days. This analysis delves into the arguments presented by both sides and the court’s pivotal judgment.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The CBI, acknowledging a delay of almost four years, attributed it to bureaucratic procedures and challenges during the COVID lockdown. The agency cited the lengthy process to obtain permission from higher authorities and the vacancy in the office of the Additional Solicitor General for almost ten months. The opposing party argued against condonation, asserting that bureaucratic hurdles could not excuse the CBI’s casual approach. The defense emphasized that modern technology should have mitigated delays, and the explanation provided by the CBI was deemed vague.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De expressed astonishment at the CBI’s conduct, highlighting the intolerable sluggishness in filing the special leave to appeal. While acknowledging the exceptional nature of condonation of delay, the court stressed that government departments, including the CBI, have a special obligation to perform their duties diligently. The court found the CBI’s arguments for the delay unconvincing, emphasizing that authorities should have been more diligent. Despite the criticism, the court, in the interest of justice, decided to condone the delay and permitted the filing of the appeal against the acquittal.