##PAGE1##

1

2025:CGHC:61738-DB

ROHIT NAFR

KUMAR

CHANDRA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Digitally signed

by ROHIT

KUMAR

CHANDRA

CRMP No. 3817 of 2025

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

Gajendra Sagarwanshi S/o Ramkhilawan Sagarwanshi Aged About 24

Years Village Amlidih, P.S. Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

19 . 12 .202 5

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for

the State/applicant on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for

condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the application for grant of

leave to appeal under Section 419(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

2. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the

State/applicant submits that the order of acquittal dated 30.06.2025 has

2

been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District –

Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 42/2024, whereby the

respondent has been acquitted from charges punishable under Section

109(1) of BNS and Section 25(1-B), B of the Arms Act and thereafter,

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 judgment dated

30.06.2025. Thereafter, the case was placed before the 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.

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 65 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

3

to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays

that the delay of 65 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, 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 condonation of delay when there was no

gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of

bonafide, a liberal con