(1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner praying for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal being CRA No. 306 of 2001.

(2.) Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in Special Case No. 6/1990 arising out of RC 12/85 dated 20.2.1987 of C. B.I./ S.P.E./Cal, the Learned Judge, First Special Court, Alipore by judgment and order dated 25.1.2001 acquitted the accused opposite parties. The petitioner challenging the said judgment and order of acquittal has filed the appeal. There was 39 days delay in filing the appeal and grounds of delay has been explained in paragraph 11 of the application. The grounds mentioned in the said paragraph 11 would reveal that as it was an appeal by organisation of Government and the matter passed through different tables and officers, delay was inevitable and beyond the control of petitioner. In matter of State when it passes through different departments and machinery some delay is expected. In the instant matter the petitioner has been able to make out sufficient cause for the delay which prevented it in filing the appeal in time.

(3.) Mr. Roy further submitted the expression "sufficient cause" should be contrued liberally with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than technical considerations. The factors which are peculiar too and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions require adoption of pragmatic approach and Court decide the matter on merit, and the delay should be condoned. In support of his contention Mr. Roy referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, AIR 2000 SC 2306, AIR 1996 SC 2750, AIR 1996 SC 1623 and AIR SC 897.

(4.) Mr. Subir Banerjee learned Advocate for the accused opposite parties submitted that delay has not been explained properly. No explanation of delay between the dates as disclosed in Clauses (d), (e) and (f) in paragraph 11 has been explained. The said Clauses of paragraph 11 do not at all explain properly the cause of delay. The Clauses (g) and (h) of paragraph 11 also do not explain properly the delay between the dates as mentioned in those clauses. There is no material at all in the appeal itself. The petitioner failed to produce sufficient and some important witnesses before the concerned Court as a result of which there was order of acquittal. The accused opposite parties have retired in the meantime and they should not be called again in the appeal. There is no merit at all in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Court must be impartial and should not favour the petitioner as it is one of the wings of Government. Being a Government concern, the petitioner is not entitled to have any extra advantage. When the petitioner has failed to explain the causes of delay in filing the appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be dismissed. In support of his condonation Mr. Banerjee cited a decision reported in (1993)1 Cal LT (Cal) 132.

(5.) I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of the parties. It appears that petitioner, that is, Central Bureau of Investigation wants to prefer appeal being CRA No. 306 of 2001 assailant the order of acquittal dated 25.1.2001 passed by the Learned Judge, First Special Court, Alipore. The application for condonation of delay reveals that the petitioner filed the application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment on 31.1.2001 and petitioner received certified copy of the order on 30.3.2001. On 4.4.2001 the Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch submitted opinion to the Senior Public Prosecutor of C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Calcutta and on 10.4.2001 the senior Public Prosecutor submitted his comments. Thereafter on 30.5.2001, the Deputy Legal Adviser C.B.I. held discussion with the Public Prosecutor and gave his opinion, and thereafter, on 8.6.2001 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.I., went thr