Order

28/10/2026

1. The present application seeking leave to appeal has been placed before this Court for consideration.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 130 days in filing the instant application seeking leave to appeal, for condonation whereof, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the State.

3. Having regard to the nature of the litigant, it is pertinent to observe that the State, unlike an individual litigant, functions through an institutional and administrative mechanism. The decision-making process, processing of files and obtaining requisite approvals necessarily involve movement of the matter from one official to another and from one administrative level to another. Such procedural requirements, inherent in the functioning of the Government, may occasion some delay in taking a final decision and instituting proceedings before the Court. Unlike an individual litigant, the State does not pursue litigation for the advancement of any personal or private interest, but acts in discharge of its public duties and institutional responsibilities. Therefore, a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach deserves to be adopted while examining the explanation furnished for the delay, particularly when the challenge pertains to an acquittal recorded in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. It is trite that the grant of leave to appeal is a condition precedent for the admission of an appeal and such leave is neither automatic nor a matter of right, but rests within the discretionary jurisdiction of the appellate Court. The purpose of seeking leave is to obtain the Court's permission to assail the impugned judgment before the appeal is formally entertained.

5. At the stage of consideration of leave, the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the case. The scope of scrutiny is confined to ascertaining whether the proposed appeal discloses arguable issues, raises substantial questions of law or fact, or otherwise demonstrates sufficient cause warranting appellate interference.

6. In a prosecution launched against the respondents, the learned trial court, after a full-fledged trial, acquitted the respondents.

7. Upon perusal of the judgment impugned, there appear reasonable grounds to permit the State to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents from the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. This Court is satisfied that the proposed challenge is neither frivolous nor vexatious and that the issues raised deserve consideration by the appellate Court.

9. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay stands allowed. The delay of 130 days in filing the instant application seeking leave to appeal is condoned. Consequently, the instant application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. The memo of leave to appeal shall be treated as an appeal and shall be registered as such.

10. Opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the respondents at the time of hearing on the question of admission of the appeal.

11. Office is directed to proceed in accordance with law.