(1.) This is an application filed by the State under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 30 days in filing an appeal against the order of acquittal under S.417 Cr. P. C. In the affidavit in support of the petition the State has explained the cause for the delay. The judgment was delivered on 28-3-1963, the same day application for copy of the judgment was made and copy was received on 9-4-63. After the copy was received, the Collector addressed the Advocate General on 16-5-63 for eliciting his opinion and the views of the Advocate General was communicated to the Government on 4-7-1963 and on 27-7-1963 the Government authorised the filing of an appeal and the appeal was filed on 7-8-1963. It was argued by the State Prosecutor that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and for sufficient cause as the State Government had to be consulted in the matter and certain other formalities had also to be gone through before the filing of an appeal could be authorised. The accused in the case who have been given notice of the petition has opposed the application and filed a counter affidavit and they contended that no sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay.
(2.) S.5 of the Limitation Act gives a discretionary power to the courts in a given case to condone the delay to enlarge the period of limitation. As was observed in Surendra Mohan v. Mahendranath ( AIR 1932 Cal. 589 ):
(3.) The principles for the application of S.5 have been explained in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. ( AIR 1962 SC 361 at p. 363), wherein Gajendragadkar J. observed: