STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. BIKASH MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on I.A. No.01 of 2024, which is an application filed by the State-Applicant, under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of twenty days' delay in filing the leave to Appeal.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that twenty days' delay in filing the Appeal arose on account of the administrative delays when the File was taken from one office to the next. That, after the File was received in the office of the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it was found that the impugned Judgment was underlined with pen on each of the pages. Accordingly, he had to requisition a fresh copy of the Judgment which took further time. That, fifteen days' delay took place on account of this rectification that had to be made and for preparing the Appeal. The Prosecution having made out bona fide grounds for the delays, fortified with sufficient cause, the delay may be condoned.

(3.) Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents objects to the Petition on grounds that in fact it is not twenty days' delay, but one hundred and ten days' delay as the period during which the Appeal ought to have been filed was not explained by the Prosecution. That, in fact, Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that while filing an Appeal only the opinion of the Public Prosecutor is to be taken. However, in the instant matter, the File has been sent from one office to the next, resulting in the delay and thereby causing prejudice to the Respondents. That, the grounds for delay not having been explained sufficiently, the Petition may be rejected.