Government departments are not entitled to special treatment regarding the law of limitation; they must provide cogent, specific, and satisfactory explanations ('sufficient cause') for any delay in approaching the court, as condonation of delay is an exception that should not be granted mechanically.

Order on Board

09-04-2026

1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy S.G. with Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel for Union of India/appellant on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 399 days.

2. The Union of India/appellant has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the judgment dated 19.07.2024, passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 6853/2017 arising out of Crime No.3258/2018 registered at RPF Post Raipur for the offence under Section 145 , 146, 172 of Railway Act, 1989 , by the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charges under Section 145 , 146, 172 of Railway Act, 1989 .

3. Learned counsel for the appellant / Union of India 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 counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is patently erroneous, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Despite there being ample, cogent, and reliable evidence available on record establishing the guilt of the accused/respondent, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted him on wholly insignificant, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable grounds. The Court failed to appreciate that, the charges leveled against the respondent are very serious in nature that on the date of incident, i.e, 22-08-2017 he created nuisance by using obscene language after consuming alcohol in train No.12859 PF No. 03 and on the same date, time and place he created obstruction in the work of railway servants by behaving indecently with them while performing their duties and the same date, time and place, he was working as a railway guard under the influence of alcohol and appeared in an intoxicated state while performing his duty and because of this reason the accused is not entitled for any sympathy by this Court. It is also submitted that on 22-08-2017 the respondent was on duty as a guard on train number 12859 Geetanjali Express. It has been contended that the department after perusal and getting permission from the higher officials and upon enquiry, after taking legal opinion from the Counsel, after arranging all the documents required for the appeal provided document to Counsel and after complying all the procedures the instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed with a delay of 399 days, which is bonafide and not deliberate. 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 counsel for the appellant/Union of India prays that the delay of 399 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, (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 inclu