The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The Union of India (Applicant) has moved this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the Leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The period of 54 days delay has been computed by the Applicant in terms of Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant was a public servant.

2. The application states that by virtue of Section 378(5) Cr.P.C., the Applicant had time till 30.11.2022 to file the appeal but was filed on 24.1.2023 with a delay of 54 days. It is stated that the Applicant came to know about the judgment on acquittal on 21.6.2022 when the conducting counsel telephonically informed the Applicant. Thereafter, as mandated by rule 50 of the Drugs Rule, 1945, the Applicant sought permission through letter dated 28.6.2022 from his higher authorities, i.e., the Drugs Controller General of India, for necessary direction. It is stated that permission to challenge the impugned judgment was given vide letter dated 17.10.2022 which was received by the Applicant on 31.10.2022. Thereafter, it is stated by letter dated 1.11.2022 that a request was made to the Ministry of Law and Justice for engagement of counsel for filing appeal and the Ministry vide letter dated 7.11.2022 informed the Applicant that the Deputy Solicitor General of India may be contacted for filing the appeal. The Deputy Solicitor General of India was thereafter telephonically informed who requested the applicant to forward the entire case papers for perusal and further course of action. The applicant vide letter dated 11.11.2022 forwarded the case papers to the Deputy Solicitor General of India who received it on 23.11.2022. On 1.12.2022, the Deputy Solicitor General of India had a conference with the Applicant where it was revealed that the documents sent by post were incomplete and accordingly on 5.12.2022, the case papers were again sent to her. The Deputy Solicitor General of India was, however, out of station since 14.12.2022 for the yearly death rites of her father-in-law at Siliguri. The Deputy Solicitor General of India had to proceed to Delhi on 25.12.2022 for an official conference. Although the documents sent on 5.12.2022 reached the address of the Deputy Solicitor General of India, it could not be received, as the entire family was out of station. It was only on 8.01.2023 that the documents could be collected from her neighbour. As the Deputy Solicitor General of India was engaged only on 1.12.2022, she applied for certified copy of the judgment on 5.12.2022 and received it on 14.12.2022. After receiving the case papers, the Deputy Solicitor General took some time to prepare the appeal and the connected applications. During this period, the Deputy Solicitor General of India was undergoing treatment for back pain and cervical spondolysis. Her child was also unwell and undergoing treatment at Siliguri. In the circumstances, she could not prepare the appeal till 18.01.2023. The draft appeal was sent to the Applicant on 21.01.2023 for approval which was received and forwarded to her on 23.01.2023. Ultimately the appeal was filed on 24.01.2023.

3. The application is further supported by affidavits dated 28.07.2023 and 18.04.2024. According to the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 18.04.2024 summarises the reasons for the delay. Paragraphs 4 and 5 seek to explain the grounds for delay as narrated in the application in greater detail.

4. The respondents did not file any response to the Application or the two affidavits in support thereof. Therefore, the assertions made in the application and the two affidavits remain unassailed. Mr. Sudesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to contest the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Applicant fails to explain the delay on a day to day basis. Although, the application seek