( 1 ) THESE three miscellaneous petitions are filed by the state represented by the Public Prosecutor, high Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking condonation of inordinate delay in representing criminal appeals against the acquittal, can be disposed of by this common order. All the petitions are accompanied by the affidavit of the Manager in Public prosecutor's office and are similar giving identical reasons justifying the delay.

(i) Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 10015 of 2004 the respondents - Avunoori Srikanth and Kalwala Jagan - were acquitted by the court of IV Additional District and Sessions judge, Karimnagar, by judgment dated 16. 3. 2004, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2003. They were charged for an offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The respondents entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted and as noticed supra, by judgment dated 16. 3. 2004 (about six years ago), prosecution case was thrown out by Sessions Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents, the State preferred Crl. A. (SR) No. 10015 of 2004 on 14. 6. 2004, after obtaining necessary information from the Government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1615 days.

(ii) Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 20628 of 2005 the respondents - Reddy Malta Reddy and Reddy Pami Reddy - were acquitted by the Court of V Additional District and sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court, nizamabad, by judgment dated 15. 3. 2005, in sessions Case No. 193 of 2004. They were charged for an offence under Sections 302, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondents entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted and as noticed supra, by judgment dated 15. 3. 2005 (about five years ago), prosecution case was thrown out by Sessions Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents, the State preferred Crl. A. (SR) No. 20628 of 2005 on 21. 11. 2005, after obtaining necessary information from the Government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1343 days.

(iii) Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 21341 of 2005 the respondent - Thalapala Kamakshi- was charged for an offence under sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal code, 1860, by the Court of IV Additional district and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in sessions Case No. 224 of 2001. She entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted. By judgment dated 17. 3. 2005 (about five years ago), she was convicted for the offence under Sections 304 Part IT and 324 of IPC. However, sessions Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of ipc. Aggrieved by the finding of Sessions court, the State preferred Crl. A. (SR)No. 21341 of 2005 on 30. 11. 2005, after obtaining necessary information from the government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1349 days.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned Public prosecutor. In the affidavit filed by Manager of Public Prosecutor's office, it is stated that one Sri Ganeswara Rao, who is manager in-charge of filing appeals against the acquittals retired on 31. 5. 2004, that thereafter Sri T. M. Y. Swamulu, became manager, but he was su