##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6652

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2330 of 2025

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, District Korba,

C.G.

... Petitioner

versus

1. Salman Khan S/o Moh. Samsud Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o

Sanjay Nagar, Railway Station Road, Korba, Police Station Kotwali,

District Korba, C.G.

... Respondent

For Petitioner/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

05.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Supriya Upasane, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the petitioner on I.A. No. 01, which is an

application for condonation of delay of 386 days in preferring

the instant appeal.

2. The State/petitioner has preferred the instant application for

grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the findings and

judgment of acquittal dated 20.03.2024, passed in Special Case

Digitally

signed by

MANISH

MANISHYADAV

YADAV Date:

2026.02.06

12:27:26

+0530

2

No. 03/2023, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.

(POCSO), Korba, District Korba (C.G), whereby acquitting the

respondents from the offence punishable under Section 354,

354(A), 427, 294, 323, 506-II of IPC and Section 08 & 12 of

POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner / State submits that though

the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the

appellate Court nonetheless possesses wide powers of

reappreciation of evidence, and where such reappraisal reveals

that the findings of acquittal are unjust, perverse or against the

weight of evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to

reverse the same. Learned State counsel submits that the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is

patently erroneous, perverse, and contrary to the settled

principles of law. Despite there being ample, cogent, and

reliable evidence available on record establishing the guilt of the

accused/respondents, the learned Trial Court has erroneously

acquitted them on wholly insignificant, unreasonable, and

legally unsustainable grounds. Learned trial Court failed to

appreciate the circumstances and acquitted the respondents on

account of minor omissions and contradictions.

4. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary

documents and information with respect to the case preferred

the present petition, however, some delay was occurred due to

3

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 386 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 386 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

4

claim that they have a separate period of limitation

when the Department was possessed with

competent persons familiar with court

proceedings. In