IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123 CRM-13520-2025 in/&

Date of decision: 22.09.2025 State of Punjab ....Applicant/Appellant V/s Tarsem Singh and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab for the applicant/appellant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-13520-2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- State seeking condonation of delay of 500 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The main appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 05.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby respondents were acquitted from the charges framed against them in case FIR No.71 dated 22.08.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections

452, 324, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of the prayer for condonation of delay of 500 days, has argued that the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment was applied for on 09.10.2023 and the same was prepared on 16.10.2023. Thereafter, the District Attorney, Mansa, sent the proposal to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, along with his comments on 06.11.2023. The Director, Prosecution and Litigation, examined the proposal and forwarded it to the Department of Home Affairs & Justice, Punjab on 01.12.2023, which was received in the said office on 11.12.2023. Subsequently, the matter was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General, Punjab for legal opinion, where it was received on 12.12.2023. Learned State counsel has further argued that the case was marked to a Law Officer on the very same day, who tendered his opinion on 22.12.2023, which was duly endorsed by the Additional Advocate General, Punjab on 04.01.2024. Thereafter, the office of the learned Advocate General, Punjab, forwarded the proposal to the Government for taking a final decision. After receiving the Government’s sanction letter dated 04.03.2024, the grounds of appeal were drafted on 19.04.2024. On 23.04.2024, the office of the Advocate General informed the SSP, Mansa, and the concerned SHO regarding the filing of an affidavit explaining the delay and the affidavit in support of the grounds of appeal. Thereafter, the case remained with the concerned SI till 06.06.2024, and the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and the grounds of appeal were drafted by the Police Department on 15.02.2025, after completing the necessary procedural formalities. On completion of the remaining formalities, the present appeal was filed before this Court. It has been argued by learned counsel that due to the procedural requirements as detailed above, a delay of 500 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 revision petition was neither intentional nor deliberate, and hence, deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned State counsel for the applicant-petitioner 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 substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof r