Is time needed for retrieval of data by itself sufficient ground to extend time for filing a charge sheet, even where sanction is also sought?

Paragraph 21A plain reading of the order dated 17th December 2022 conveys that the Special Judge was in agreement with the prosecution that there is at least one more good reason for extension of time, more particularly, on the ground of obtaining sanction from the appropriate Government. It is really not correct to say that the only ground that found favour with the Special Judge to grant thirty days’ further time for filing the charge sheet was for retrieving data from the Forensic Laboratory. In some parts of India, the orders and judgments in the subordinate Courts are largely in English. Many times, it is the use of a particular word or a particular style of writing of a judge which has attracted criticism and consumed large hours of judicial time of the higher Courts. It is also well known that the judges have their own style of writing. They have their own understanding of the use of words and grammar in English. A situation like the present one stems from the flexibility of English language which is complex at times. The real problem is that a certain word in English is capable of conveying different meanings in different context. Doug Larson, an American columnist and editor, made an interesting comment about the English language: ‘if the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur’. James D. Nicoll, a science fiction reviewer, posted a quote on English language in a Usenet Discussion Forum which over time attracted diverse internet response on how a word in English is capable of conveying different and interesting meanings. Simply put, a practical approach is, therefore, needed to understand a judgment.

Paragraph 22The language employed in a document is not always a perfect way of expression. All that is required to be seen is whether the order in question is justified, proper and valid in law, given the background of facts pleaded by the parties. The order dated 17th December 2022 passed by the Special Judge has to be read in the background of facts of the case. It is also necessary to keep in mind the reasons put forth by the prosecution to seek extension of time for filing the charge sheet beyond ninety days. The expression “only” used by the Special Judge in the order dated 17th December 2022 does not bear the true meaning. We are of the opinion that the Special Judge in the order dated 17th December 2022 intended to convey that the time for retrieval of data is itself a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time for filing the charge sheet, though sanction for prosecution is also a material ground. The decision in “Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely”[^13] supports the view taken by the Special Judge in this order. However, the High Court erroneously held that this decision is based on its specific facts where the FSL Report was not received and Arms Act and UAPA sanctions were awaited. The discussion in “Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely”[^13] provides an invaluable insight how the High Court has gone wrong in the present case, and is reproduced below: