A. P. SUBBA, J. :- This is an application filed by the State of Sikkim under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing an appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "Cr. P.C.").

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents herein were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division - I (1/C) at Gangtok in Sessions Trial Case No. 4 of 2004 on 31st March, 2006. When the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment of conviction and sentence came up for hearing before this Court on 2nd May, 2007, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing before this Court submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment and fine passed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") was grossly inadequate and as such, the State proposes to take necessary steps for enhancement of sentence. Upon such submission being made, the matter was adjourned so as to enable the State to take necessary steps to file an appeal under Section 377, Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the State took necessary steps and filed the accompanying appeal. It is, therefore, contended that the delay that occurred on account of the reasons stated above was genuine and as such, the cause shown is satisfactory and sufficient for condonation of the delay sought for.

3. The respondents opposed the application by filing a joint written objection wherein it is contended that the appeal having been filed after a lapse of about 450 days was hopelessly time barred. Over and above, the explanation given by the State-petitioner does not explain the full length of delay that occurred in filing the appeal and as such the same cannot be taken as satisfactory in the circumstances of the case.

4. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor and Karma Thinlay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner and Shri N. Rai, learned Legal Aid Counsel assisted by Ms. Jyoti Kharka, Advocate appearing for the respondents were heard.

5. It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before this Court that the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution in the Court below did not press for passing sentence of death even though the materials which had come on record warranted such a severe sentence. It was only after the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State before this Court examined the matter in depth that the question of filing an appeal for enhancement of sentence arose. Hence, the delay was not attributable to any lack of bona fide on the part of the State. The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the explanation as given by the learned Public Prosecutor, even if accepted, explains the delay only in part and cannot be accepted as "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. Admittedly, the question of filing an appeal for enhancement of the sentence did not arise till the matter cropped up on 2nd May, 2007 in this Court during the hearing of the appeal filed by the respondents. However, it appears that once the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before this Court was convinced, on perusal of papers, that an enhancement of sentence was called for, the process was initiated without further loss of time. This would, therefore, show that there was no laxity on the part of the State after 2nd May, 2007. However, it does not appear to be the case with regard to the substantial period of delay preceding 2nd May, 2007. There is, therefore, no doubt that the explanation offered, if taken in isolation, cannot be treated as satisfactory for condonation of the whole period of delay. However, we would hasten to add that, such an approach would not be in conformity with the well-recognised principles evolved over the years on the basis of judicial pronouncements. Some of such pronouncement to which we propose to refer are