2026:CGHC:7478-DB NAFR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.12 10:26:27 +0530 CRMP No. 450 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sakri Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus Tarun Singh @ Toni S/o Late Mahant Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Sector 44, Chalaura Noida, Police Station Kotwali 39 Gautambuddh Nagar, District- Noida (Up)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner/State : Mr. S..S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

11.2.2026

1. Heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the judgment of acquittal dated 6.3.2025 has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First F.T.S.C. (POCSO Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur on 17.12.2025 sent a proposal to the office of the Advocate General to file a acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment dated 6.3.2025. Thereafter, the case was placed before the Advocate General on 22.12.2025 and on the same day the case was marked for drafting acquittal appeal 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.

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 233 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 50 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. 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 to advance substa