##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:4650-DB

Digitally signed

ALOK b Sy H A AL RO MK A NAFR

SHARMA Date:

2026.01.29

17:06:08 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 167 of 2024

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police

Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Mikshit Sinha @ Monu Sinha S/o Chhagal Sinha Aged About 20

Years R/o Village Jidar, Police Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh,

Chhattisgarh

2 - Suraj Sinha S/o Dilip Sinha Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jidar,

Police Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chunesh Kumar Sinha S/o Chhabilal Sinha Aged About 19 Years

R/o Village Jidar, Police Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh,

Chhattisgarh

4 - Tokeshwar Nagesh S/o Khogeshwar Nagesh Aged About 18 Years

R/o Village Jidar, Police Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh,

Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

:

For Petitioner/State Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate.

2

Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J .

28/01/2026

1. Heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate,

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

for condonation of delay of 114 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 11.05.2023, passed in Sessions Case No.

56/2021, by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, whereby acquitting the

respondents from the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of

IPC.

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.

3

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

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 114 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 114 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

4

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