JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.

1. Delay of 809 days in filing application seeking leave to appeal against an order, whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed and accused acquitted, is sought to be condoned. The order against which leave to appeal is sought to be filed was passed on 09.11.2013 and this application has been filed on 17.04.2016.

2. The grounds on which the condonation of delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is that the appeal could not be filed in time because the applicant had filed an application seeking restoration of the complaint, which was dismissed on 05.05.2014 and after dismissal of the application for restoration of the complaint, the applicant applied to the higher authorities for sanction with regard to the filing of appeal in the said process it took time and, therefore, application seeking leave to appeal could not be filed well within time. This is all what has been stated with regard to the delay, which is sought to be condoned.

3. The record of the case would reveal that the complaint for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed on 16.06.2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Thathri and as the Food Inspector remained continuously absent for four consecutive hearings and as no witness was produced, since the case was a summon trial case, the trial court dismissed the same for non appearance of the complainant and non-prosecution. Since the accused was acquitted, instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the complaint, which was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court, because it had no power to review its own order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. To condone the delay, a case showing sufficient reasons, which prevented it from filing application seeking leave to appeal within the period prescribed, is to be shown and made out.

5. It is true that the Courts should always take liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when the appellant is the Sate, but while considering the application, the Court should also find out as to whether there is any merit in the appeal filed by the State or not.

6. The Supreme Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506, has been held that:

“12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a s