Government departments are not entitled to mechanical condonation of delay based on bureaucratic red tape; they must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' and diligence, as the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/ State.

2. The State/petitioner has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal and appeal against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 15.09.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No. 97/2021, by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Place Jagdalpur, whereby acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 302, 307 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner / 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. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances and acquitted the respondents on account of minor omissions and contradictions.

4. It has 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 bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 151 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 151 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 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 m