2026:CGHC:9432-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 563 of 2026 State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara C.G.

... Applicant(s)

versus Roshan Chauhan S/o Punit Chauhan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sambalpur, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara C.G.

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For State/Applicant : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

24.02 .2026

1. Heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/State.

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

2026.02.24 +0530 that vide memo of submission dated 23.02.2026, 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 Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/applicant submits that the order of acquittal dated 19.03.2025 has been passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Sessions (POCSO) Trial No. 19 of 2024 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 19.03.2025. 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 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, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 233 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 Governme