Government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment in condonation of delay matters; they must establish 'sufficient cause' for the delay with the same rigor as private litigants, as the law of limitation applies equally to all.

1. Heard Shri Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State appearing for the appellant on IA-1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 253 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. The State/appellant has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 05.03.2025, passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 58 of 2024, by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) whereby acquitted the respondents from the offence punishable under under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant / State 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 State counsel 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/respondents, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted them on wholly insignificant, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable grounds. The Court failed to appreciate that, the charges leveled against the respondents are very serious in nature like dealing with narcotic drugs and because of this reason the accused are not entitled for any sympathy by this Court. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that all the parameters and provisions of the NDPS Act were duly followed during the course of investigation. The respondents were in possession of contraband ganja in an illegal manner, which is evident from the FSL report, youths are targeted, which is adversely affecting the society & its future. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances and acquitted the respondents on account of minor omissions and contradictions.

4. It has also been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case preferred the present petition, 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 bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 253 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 253 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

5. 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.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC