2026:CGHC:1375-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 464 of 2018 Manoj Thakur S/o Ram Ayodhya Thakur Aged About 42 Years Occupation Business, R/o House No. LIG- 115, R.P. Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1 - Abdul Rahmaan S/o Md. Sulemann Aged About 41 Years R/o M I G- 1/56, Rabishankar Nagar, Korba, Purana Chowk, Maanikpur, Police Station- Kotwali, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2 - Yogesh Suryavanshi S/o Gajanand Suryavanshi R/o L I G -86, Digitally signed VASANT b K y U V M A A S R ANT Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, Purani Chowk, Rampur, Korba, KUMAR D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.12

1 + 8 0 : 5 1 3 3 0 :00 Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

3 - Abdul Sultan S/o Md. Sulemaan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, M I G-1/56, Purani Chowk, Maanikpur, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, District :

Korba, Chhattisgarh

4 - Shekh Imraan S/o Abdul Majid R/o House No. 286, Subash Block, S E C L , Korba, Purani Chowk, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District :

Korba, Chhattisgarh

5 - Manish Singh S/o Krishna Kumar Chatri Aged About 41 Years R/o M I G 1/143, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

6 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Korba , District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS)

For Appellant : Shri Divyanand Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahibia, Advocate For Respondent No.6/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy, GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

09.01.2026

1. Heard Shri Divyanand Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr.

Rishikant Mahibia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Government Advocate for the State/Respondent No.6.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned order dated 18.02.2016 has been assailed by way of the present acquittal appeal. It is contended that the appellant could not approach this Court within the period of limitation and that there is a delay of about one year in filing the appeal. Explaining the delay, it is argued that the appellant was not having knowledge about passing of the judgment of acquittal as the same has not informed to him. In the month of February, 2017, he came to know about judgment of acquittal then he has moved application on 14.02.2017 for getting certified copy of the judgment and other documents which he received on 25.02.2017. He would further submit that the appellant wants to engage a senior counsel to argue the present appeal on behalf of the appellant. Thus, his inability to file the acquittal appeal within time cannot be attributed to deliberate negligence or malafide conduct, but is the result of unavoidable circumstances coupled with poverty and ignorance of legal remedy. The delay, therefore, is bona fide and stands sufficiently explained. Accordingly, he prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State-

respondent No.6 opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed statutory period. It is contended that a delay of about one year is inordinate and cannot be brushed aside lightly, as condonation of such prolonged delay defeats the very object of the law of limitation, which is to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. It is further argued that the reasons assigned by the appellant, namely financial hardship, lack of guidance, and ignorance of the remedy, do not constitute sufficient cause in the eye of law. Poverty or ignorance of law, it is submitted, cannot be pleaded as a justification for circumventing statutory provisions. Learned