A.M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

1. THE appeal has been filed by the State about 80 days after the period prescribed. But the application for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the application for stay of the operation of the judgment have been filed about 6 years after. This, by itself, should, in my view, be a very important consideration in declining the stay prayed for, even if we find sufficient cause to condone the delay in presenting the appeal. If the State could wait for so many years without taking any step towards admission of the appeal on condonation of delay and, therefore, without any order of stay, there is nothing on record to show that it would suffer any irreparable injury without any curial interdiction till the hearing of the appeal, even if we admit the appeal on condonation of the delay.

2. BE it, however, noted that the learned counsel for the Respondent has not disputed that the State appellant can be regarded to have made out sufficient cause for not being able to prefer the appeal before the date on which it was actually presented about 80 days after the period prescribed. But what he has very seriously urged is that the fact th