IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

269 CRM-A-100-2021 State of Haryana ....Applicant/Appellant V/s Suraj Bhan and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 18.03.2026 Date of uploading: 18.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-28545-2021

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant– State seeking condonation of a delay of 142 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The appeal has been preferred impugning the judgment & order of conviction dated 27.08.2019, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat had sentenced the respondents/accused for one day to sit in Court till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 324 IPC and respondent No.2-Sajjan to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 452 IPC. However, the respondents had been acquitted for the charge under Section 3 of SC/ST Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of the prayer for condonation of delay of 142 days, has argued that after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the order on quantum of sentence dated 27.08.2019, the District Attorney, Sonipat, upon due examination of the record, forwarded his comments to the District Magistrate, Sonipat vide letter No. 3986/DAS/19 dated 19.09.2019, opining that the case was fit for filing an appeal against the said judgment and order on sentence. The said opinion was duly concurred with by the Superintendent of Police, Sonipat. It is further contended that the District Magistrate, Sonipat, upon consideration of the opinion rendered by the District Attorney/Public Prosecutor as well as the material available on record, including the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2019, order on sentence of the even date, and statements of witnesses, formed an independent opinion that the matter warranted filing of an appeal. Accordingly, the complete record along with the proposal was forwarded to the office of the Advocate General, Haryana vide memo No. 5121-22/R dated 26.09.2019. Learned State counsel further submits that upon receipt of the proposal, the matter was duly processed in the office of the Advocate General, Haryana and was placed before the concerned Law Officer for legal opinion. The Law Officer, after examining the case in detail, rendered his opinion, which was subsequently approved by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, thereby affirming the decision to file the appeal.

After completion of all requisite formalities, the appeal has been filed. Learned State counsel submits that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred on account of the procedural movement of the file through various statutory and administrative channels. It has been argued by learned counsel that due to the procedural requirements as detailed above, a delay of 142 days occurred, which was purely procedural and circumstantial. It has further been submitted that the delay was not attributable to any intentional negligence or lack of diligence but rather resulted from the extensive procedural requirements and formalities inherent in the process of obtaining the necessary sanction. It is, thus, submitted that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the instant appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, and hence, deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned State counsel for the applicant-State and have perused the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRR(F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of s