2026:CGHC:9781-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.26

10:40:38 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 584 of 2026 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg C.G.

... Petitioner versus

1 - Anup Singh S/o Brugunnarayan Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o L.I.G. 4/c, Sector Shahpura, Police Station Shahpura, Bhopal (M.P.)

2 - Amit Singh S/o Omprakash Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o H.No.

107, Kolar Road, Gehukheda, Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal (M.P.)

3 - Rakesh Kushwaha S/o Late Shri Vinod Kushwaha Aged About 35 Years R/o H. No. 10 Near Canal, Chunabhatti Kolar Road, Police Station Chunabhatti, Bhopal (M.P.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, 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

25.02.2026

1. Though the matter has been listed in default, however, considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 116 days in preferring the present petition, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed to hear learned counsel for the petitioner on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present petition.

2. Heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 116 days in preferring the present criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the present petition has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Court of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 152/2024, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Crime No. 200/2024 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg. It is submitted that though there is a delay of 116 days in filing the instant petition, the same has neither been intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred due to procedural formalities inherent in governmental functioning.

4. Learned counsel further submits that after passing of the impugned judgment, the matter was processed by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, which thereafter forwarded the proposal to the Office of the Advocate General for filing the appropriate criminal petition. Upon receipt of the proposal, the case was examined at various levels, the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents were obtained from the concerned department, and only thereafter was the present petition drafted and filed. It is contended that the delay has occurred on account of administrative procedures, file movement, and necessary departmental approvals, which are unavoidable in the functioning of the State machinery.

5. 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 116 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, (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