( 1 ) IN this delay condonation application the question of quite great importance that arises for the consideration is: Whether in a case where the Trial indisputedly commences on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and results into acquittal of the accused and further when the impugned order of acquittal though not challenged by the said complainant himself but yet at the same time the same came to be challenged none-the-less at his instance through the instrumentality of the State Government then whether the special benefit of the larger period of limitation of six months for filing the Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 which is otherwise available to the public servants can be reasonably availed of to hold that the acquittal appeal in question though formally filed by the State and therefore was technically beyond time and yet in substance and the spirit the same having been basically filed at the instance of the Food Inspector who is a public servant the same was within the time period of limitation.

( 2 ) TO appreciate and elicit the answer to the above question it is necessary first of all to set out few relevant facts and circumstances of the case leading to the present Misc. Criminal Application and in particular the question raised above. 2. 1 Few relevant facts: According to the Complainant-Mr. M. C. Desai Food Inspector Bhuj Municipality the Respondent-Mohanlal Valji was found selling adulterated chilly-powder in his shop and therefore a complaint for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1955 came to be filed against him before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kachchh at Bhuj. This was registered as a Summary Case No. 3136 of 1988. At the end of trial the learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 30th January 1991 acquitted the respondent and as a result the Complainant - Food Inspector moved the State Government to file an Acquittal Appeal in the High Court. Accordingly the State preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1991. In the said Appeal the office of this Court raised an objection that the same was beyond time by 63 days ultimately giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 inter alia praying for condoning the said delay of 63 days. While explaining away the facts and circumstances allegedly resulting into the said delay Mr. B. N. Pandya Assistant Legal Department in his Affidavit while setting out the details as to how and under what circumstances the alleged delay of 63 days came to take place stated that the impugned order of acquittal was passed on 30-1-1991 and thereafter the Complainant - Food Inspector applied for certified copy of the same on 20-2-1991. This was ready for delivery on 19-7-1991 and was received by the Food Inspector on 25-7-1991. Thereafter the Complainant proposed an acquittal appeal which was routed through the Office of the Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Control Administration Gandhinagar and was ultimately received by the Registry Branch of the Legal Department on 26 After entering the same in the Inward Register the same was forwarded to the concerned Branch on 27-11-1991 which in its turn after duly processing and scrutinizing on the very day only submitted the same to the Joint Secretary for taking an appropriate decision. The Joint Secretary in his turn without loosing any time whatsoever took the decision to file an acquittal appeal on the said effect was issued and forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad directing him to file an Acquittal Appeal. The said G. R. was received by the office of the Government Pleader on 28-11-1991 at 4-10 p. m. and on the very next day that is 29 the acquittal appeal came to be presented before this Court. The Criminal Branch of this Court thereafter on scrutinizing and examining the papers of the said