Court emphasized on timely action by authorities in legal procedures and ordered condonation of a substantial delay due to negligence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

7 20-01-2026 I.A. No. 1 of 2025 Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Jitender Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, Ms. Meena Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Ms. Deepali Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 40 days in presenting the appeal before this Court.

3. A perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay filed on behalf of the appellant would show that the impugned judgment was passed on 23.12.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIV, Patna. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Law Department with the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Patna for preferring an appeal on 06.03.2025. It is stated that the records were received in the Law Department on 10.03.2025 whereafter it was sent to the learned Advocate General, Bihar, Patna for his opinion. On 11.03.2025, the record was transferred to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for his opinion whereafter the opinion was recorded and sent on 24.03.2025. It was decided to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in this case.

4. It is stated that thereafter the memorandum of appeal was prepared and immediately after opening of the Court on 02.04.2025, the request was sent to the competent authority to come and swear affidavit. The present appeal could, however, be preferred only on 09.05.2025 because the competent person to swear affidavit in this case made himself available only on

07^th of May, 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer for condonation of delay by filing a counter affidavit. It is stated that the State machinery sat idle for 72 days initially and only on 06.03.2025, the matter was referred to the Law Department. It is stated that the delaying attitude on the part of the competent authority dealing with the matter in the office of the District Magistrate and then the authority who was to swear affidavit may be found from the fact that it took 1 month and 5 days in coming to the High Court for swearing affidavit in this case. In this manner, the authorities did not take care of the period of limitation i.e. 90 days for filing an appeal against acquittal in terms of Section 378 CrPC ( Section 419 (5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) read with Article 114(a) of the Second Division -Appeals under the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963.

6. At this stage, when this Court inquired from learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to when the judgment was pronounced i.e. put online/uploaded by the learned trial court and when was the certified copy of the judgment obtained and thereafter what are the reasons behind the delay of more than one month in just providing a competent person to swear affidavit, the response in this regard is required to be noticed by this Court.

7. At first instance, it appears that the date of the impugned judgment/order is 23.12.2024 but on the certified copy of the impugned judgment, the date of uploading of the judgment/order is not mentioned, therefore, it cannot be found at a glance over the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order as to when this judgment/order was uploaded on the website of the District Court, Patna.

8. We find that in this case, the date of application for obtaining the certified copy is 05.02.2025 and the date of preparation of the copy and notification for supply of folios are 10.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 respectively. The folios were deposited by the requisitionist on 13.02.2025 itself and then the delivery was given on the same date. It is, therefore, evident that from 13.02.2025 till 05.03.2025, the necessary steps for sending the matte