The State, like any other litigant, is bound by the law of limitation. Condonation of delay for government entities cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the State must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' and due diligence, as internal bureaucratic red tape does not constitute a valid justification for inordinate delays.

NAFR

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 267 days in preferring the present criminal miscellaneous petition.

2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the order of acquittal dated 05.04.2025 has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 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 05.04.2025. 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 prepared 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 267 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, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 267 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 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 concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Gover