2026:CGHC:6684-DB NAFR Digitally signed by BABLU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date:

2026.02.07

10:11:47 +0530 CRMP No. 402 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station- House Officer Police Station-

Sitapur District- Surguja (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus Beerdhan Dora S/o Melan Dora Aged About 49 Years R/o Village-

Katkalo Dumarpara Thana Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

6.2.2026

1. The default pointed out by the Registry with regard to affidavit not filed in support of memo of petition is dispensed with.

2. Heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

3. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the judgment of acquittal dated 17.10.2024 has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (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 appeal against the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2024. 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 judgment and other relevant exhibited documents have been received from the concerned Department and thereafter, the instant prepared was prepared and filed before this Court.

4. 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 370 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 255 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

5. 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.

6. 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. 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