JUDGMENT :

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.

1. The present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been maintained by the applicant for condonation of delay of 227 days, in filing the instant appeal. As per the applicant, in the instant case, certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied on 01.10.2018 and the same was delivered on 04.10.2018. On receipt of the certified copy, the case was examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, thereafter, the case was sent by the District Magistrate, Solan, to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for taking further decision. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Law Department, for seeking their opinion on 17.11.2018. Further, the case was submitted to the competent authority on 05.12.2018, thereafter, vide letter, dated 10.12.2018, the case file was sent to the concerned office, for filing an appeal before this Court. The learned Advocate General’s Office, vide his letter, dated 11.12.2018, returned the case file with an opinion that the limitation for filing an appeal has been expired and requested to send the application for condonation of delay, so that the appeal be filed. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.

2. Reply to the application has been filed and it is averred that there is no explanation of not applying for the copy of judgment dated 08.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, till 01.10.2018. However, in the instant case, no reason has come forth between 08.3.2018 to 01.10.2018. The respondent-accused was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, on 08.03.2018, after setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Court below. Since, no plausible explanation has come forth between 08.03.2018 to 01.10.2018, the delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned and as such, the same may be dismissed. Reply to the application is also duly supported with an affidavit.

3. Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the delay has occurred for the reason that it was beyond the control of applicant and is required to be condoned, as it has occurred because the file remained moving from one table to another table.

4. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has vehemently argued that the delay is not beyond the control of applicant, however if the merits of the case are seen, as per the judgment passed by the learned Court below, the only case is against the applicant that he has paid Rs.400/-, (rupees four hundred only) for the registration of the vehicle and claimed Rs.8400/-. He has further argued that in case the delay is condoned, which is unexplained by the State with plausible reason in filing the appeal and the same will cause in justice to the non-applicant/respondent and prays for dismissal of the instant application.

5. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire case file carefully.

6. Heard. At this stage, this Court has considered the averments, as made by the learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent and finds that the FIR against the non-applicant/respondent was lodged after two months, when he remained absconded, where he was serving and as per the official of the company, he has taken Rs.8400/-, by forging the receipts of Rs.400/- and ran away. This fact is not substantiated by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence and the learned Court below has rightly acquitted the non-applicant/respondent-accused by a well reasoned judgment, which otherwise needs no interference.

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Chaitram Maywade, 2020 (10) Supreme Court Cases 667, wherein it has been held as under :

“5. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial t