XXX Vs. Gurinder Singh & anr. Cr.MP(M) No. 2405 of 2024 17.6.2025 Present: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 2. The child victim (through her father) has preferred the present application seeking condonation of delay, in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 27.5.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, in Session Case No. 15-K/VII/2022, titled as, ‘State of HP versus Gurvinder Singh. 2. Since, the application has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application, for condonation of delay, has been moved. As per the report of the Registry, there is delay of 140 days. 3. Delay has mainly been sought to be condoned on the ground that after passing the judgment of acquittal, the State has not opted to prefer the appeal, before this Court, challenging the judgment of acquittal, despite the fact that the limitation period to file the appeal is over. The applicant waited even after the limitation period to file appeal was over, but when, the same has not been done, the applicant has decided to prefer the appeal. 4. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate has prayed that delay in filing the appeal may kindly be allowed. 5. When put to notice, the application has only been contested by respondent No. 1, in which, it has been pleaded that present application has been filed without explaining the delay in filing the appeal/leave to appeal. In nut-shell, it is the case of respondent No. 2 that there is nothing in the application, which would even demonstrate that there is sufficient reasonable cause, for not moving the appeal, within the prescribed limitation. Supporting the judgment, being well-reasoned, it has been prayed that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may kindly be dismissed. 6. Respondent No. 2 although has filed reply, but on 13.5.2025, the learned Addl. A.G., on instructions, has stated that respondent No. 2 does not intend to contest the present application. 7. Heard. 8. Perusal of the record shows that vide judgment dated 27.5.2024, the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala, has acquitted respondent No. 1 from the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 506 and 508 of the IPC and Section 10 of Prevention of Children from Sexual offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’). 9. Admittedly, the respondent-State has not preferred the appeal. However, considering the low legal literacy of the Indian Masses, this Court is of the view that the applicant has explained the delay to the judicial satisfaction of this Court, in not preferring the appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation. 10. In this case, respondent No. 1, who has been arrayed as accused before the learned trial Court, has been acquitted and the applicant-Child victim is not going to achieve anything by not preferring the appeal within time, had she been not prevented to do so by the reasons, so mentioned, in the application. 11. In view of above, delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2501 of 2024 12 Vide order of even date, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2405 of 2024, delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is ordered to be condoned. 13. Reply be filed, on or before the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, record of learned trial Court be requisitioned. List on 15.7.2025. (Virender Singh) Judge June 17, 2025 (kalpana)