2026:CGHC:803-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI NAFR TIWARI Date:

2026.01.08

10:52:57 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 13 of 2026 State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Saliha, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus

1 - Akil Khan S/o Naseeb Khan Aged About 18 Years R/o Kahuwajunwani, P.S. Saliha, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Saroj Bariha S/o Dadu Bariha Aged About 22 Years R/o Kahuwajunwani, P.S. Saliha, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Shakeel Mohammad @ Tikrapariha S/o Javed Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o Kahuwajunwani, P.S. Saliha, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

07.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 438 days in preferring the present criminal miscellaneous petition.

2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the order of acquittal dated 22.06.2024 has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) and the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur sent a proposal to the office of the Advocate General to file a acquittal against the impugned order dated 22.06.2024 Thereafter, the case was placed before the Advocate General and then the case was marked for drafting and as per the above proposal, the office has initiated proceeding and certified copy of the impugned order and other relevant exhibited documents have been received from the concerned Department and thereafter, the instant prepared was prepared and filed before this Court.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, however, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery because the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 438 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 438 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for leave to appeal from an order of acquittal.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC

563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-

“27. 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.

28. Thoug