2026:CGHC:7226-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 426 of 2026 The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus Sindhu Ghosh S/o Salil Ghosh Aged About 43 Years R/o B.1 Lek Blue Apartment Dimond Park Kolkat (West Bangal)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For State/Applicant : 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

10.02 .2026

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State.

2. Learned Government Advocate submits that the defects pointed Digitally signed by out by the Registry have already been cured. He further submits that BRIJMOHAN

BRIJMOHAN MORLE

MORLE Date:

2026.02.10

+0530

vide memo of submission dated 09.02.2026, the State has filed the relevant exhibited documents, which are taken on record. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the matter finally.

3. Also heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/applicant submits that the order of acquittal dated 07.05.2025 has been passed by the learned 1^st Upper Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 86 of 2023 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 07.05.2025. Thereafter, the case was placed before the learned 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 petition was prepared and filed before this Court.

5. 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 169 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, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 169 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

6. 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.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in (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 co