Sadanand Mukherjee, J.

1. This matter relates to an application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant against the order and judgment dated 27.6.2005 passed in G.R. No. 698 of 2001/ Tr. No. 2650/2005 by Sri Saniay Kumar Singh. Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Patna, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate bad acquitted the respondent-accused Baleshwar Kumar Ravi for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . It has been submitted that last date for filing Government appeal was 25.9.2005. The delay has been caused in the following manner.

2. It has been stated by the appellant that total time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment was 19 days inclusive of 7 days spent in obtaining first certified copy of the impugned judgment which on perusal was found to be defective and additional period of 12 days was spent in obtaining a correct certified copy of the judgment.

3. It has been submitted that the delay caused by the District Magistrate and the Public Prosecutor was on account of circumstances beyond control of the appellant. When remission of delay of 17 days in obtaining Proper certified copy is deducted then last date of filing comes to 14.10.2005. During the month following the judgment in the case. the Assistant Prosecuting Officer in the trial court was transferred out of Patna Civil Court and the next Assistant Prosecuting Officer had to spend long period to get acquainted with the case and study the records and judgment of the court to form conclusion about the need of appeal against the impugned judgment and after formulating the valid grounds of appeal the same was sent for recommendation to the government for filing appeal which was done on 26.8.2005 within the period of limitation.

4. The delay caused by the Government officials have been stated in details. Thereafter the Law Secretary after due consideration approved the proposal for filing the appeal against acquittal and the file was forwarded to the office of Advocate General on 11.11.2005 for filing appeal. The delay in getting the file processed in the government offices. Law Department and Secretariat have been elaborately mentioned. Notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 for his appearance. Respondent No. 1 has given reply to the limitation petition.

5. Objection has been raised by the respondent for entertaining aplication for grant of leave to appeal u/s. 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein and whereunder, the appellant- State of Bihar being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh. S.D.J.M. Patna has prayed for grant of leave and admit the appeal against the aforesaid part judgment and order of acquittal of respondent No. 1 in respect of charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and against respondent No. 2 under Secs. 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

6. The objection raised is based on the around of limitation, in as much as, the present application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal was filed on 21.12.2005.

7. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that there is no explanation for filing of application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal after the expiration of limitation of 60 days and therefore present application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquital is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s. 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been stated that the State has not annexed any document in support of statements made in the limitation petition and therefore serious prejudice has been caused to respondent No. 1.

8. In respect of principle of law. it has been submitted that leave to appeal against acquittal is granted in rare cases as it affects the liberty to the acquitted person. The present application for grant of leave to appeal