HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 60 of 2011 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the record. 3. Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the accused/respondent is not present even in the revised list. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1st, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 1997 (State Vs. Ram Kishun @ Vishun Patel) by which the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 5. This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 75 days. 6. An application dated 05.02.2011 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed with the prayer to condone the delay in filing of the present Government Appeal. An affidavit in support thereof has also been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the State-appellant submits that the delay in filing of the appeal was on the ground that the proposal in according sanction was sent to the office the District Magistrate concerned on 18.09.2010 and the State Government issued a Government Order on 11.01.2011 and after the same sanction was obtained and then the appeal was prepared and filed. It is submitted that as such the State Government was ceased with the matter and it was only on Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.A. Counsel for Respondent(s) : , K.K.Singh State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Ram Kishun Alias Vishun Patel .....Respondent(s) 11.01.2011 sanction was granted and then the appeal was prepared and filed and thus the appeal is well explained. 8. The perusal of paragraph 4 & 5 of the said affidavit goes to show that there had been administrative lethargy at the stage of State Government in as much as the office of the District Magistrate sent the proposal for according sanction on 18.09.2010 on which the sanction was accorded by the State Government on 11.01.2011. There is no explanation as to what was being done for the period integrum. 9. The law with regard to the same is trite. The explanation has to be tendered on day to day basis and mere vague and passing reference of events cannot be termed as explanation. The Apex Court in the case of Shivamma Vs. Karnataka Housing Board: 2025 INSC 1104 has held that administrative lethargy cannot be ground for condonation of delay and the in the present matter the same is evident. 10. Further the cause-list shows that a Criminal Appeal U/s 372 No. 6321 of 2010 (Surya Lal Saroj Vs. State Of U.P. & Another) was filed against the same impugned judgement and order which stood decided vide order dated 05.11.2014. The office has placed on record the copy of the order dated 05.11.2014 and has marked it as 'F', the same reads as under:- "Case has been taken up in the revised list. Counsel for the appellant is not present. Heard learned AGA and perused the record of the trial court. It appears that through impugned judgment dated 31.07.2010 the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No.1, Jaunpur has acquitted the opposite party no.2 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 325, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act. After appreciation of evidence the learned trial court has found that appellant was aggressor and investigation of the case was conducted by Sub-inspector of police which ought to have been carried out by Deputy S.P. The investigation is wholly illegal and Sub-inspector of police cannot submit charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. On perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court it cannot be said that they are in any manner are not based on record or perverse. Thus no interference in the impugned judgment is GOVAD No. 60 of 2011 2 required in this appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed." 11. The said appeal against acquittal against the same impugned judgment and order has already been dismissed by the said order even after perusal of the trial court records. 12. In view of the same, the said application is dismissed and the matter be consigned to the records. 13. Office to communicate this order to the concerned trial court/District and Sessions Judge for information and necessary follow-up action. October 8, 2025 AS Rathore GOVAD No. 60 of 2011 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad