STATE OF J&K Vs. VINOD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application, the State-appellant is seeking leave to file the Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 05.02.2018, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 97/2005 registered at Police Station, Domana under Sections 419/420/467/468/34 of Ranbir Penal Code whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents from commission of the offences with which they were charged. Since there was a delay of 154 days in filing application seeking leave to file Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with memorandum of appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Amit Gupta, learned Additional Advocate. The sole reason put forth for delay is that impugned judgment was passed on 05.02.2018 and the matter was examined and forwarded to Government for filing of Acquittal Appeal and the matter took some time at different administrative levels and finally sanction was issued on 06.06.2018 and same was received in the office of Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra on 19.09.2018 and the counsel took some in reading the judgment and drafting the appeal which was filed on 11.10.2018.

(3.) It is well settled that the applicant who seeks to condone the delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is required to explain the delay of every day elapsed beyond the period of limitation and offer sufficient cause for such delay. The application discloses that delay was caused as the matter had to travel through different routes in Government Machinery. It is amazing that sanction took about 3 months to reach from Law Department to office of Government Advocate. Mere saying that the matter had to go through at different administrative levels and took some time is of no acceptance and doesn't fulfill the criteria of sufficient cause. The application for condonation, therefore, doesn't deserve allowance on its own merit.