1 State of H.P. Vs. Chaman Lal Cr.MP(M) No. 499 of 2025 Reserved on:24.04.2026 02.06.2026 Present: Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/appellant. Mr Surinder Singh Saklani, Advocate, for the non-applicant/respondent. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 37-days delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was received on 26.09.2024. Learned District Attorney/Public Prosecutor, District Bilaspur, H.P., examined the certified copy and sent the file to District Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. District Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., sent the file to Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for taking action. The matter was referred to the Law Department. The case was examined and sent to the competent authority on 22.11.2024, for taking a final decision. The competent authority decided that the appeal was to be filed before the High Court. This led to the delay, which is not intentional but due to consultation at 2 various levels. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The notice of the application was issued to the respondent, who appeared before the court. Adjournments were sought to file a reply to the application, but no reply was filed despite the last opportunity and right to file a reply was closed in terms of the Court order dated 02.03.2026. 3 I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State and Mr Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the non- applicant/respondent. 4. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State, submitted that the delay occurred due to consultation with various authorities. There was no intention to delay the filing of the appeal. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 5. Mr Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the 3 accused/respondent, submitted that the State cannot seek favoured treatment and has to be treated like an ordinary litigant. The state has not provided any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 459, that the Court has adopted a liberal approach in condoning delay in short duration and a stricter approach, where the delay is inordinate. The Court should allow a certain latitude to the Government because the State represents the collective cause of the community, and the decisions are taken by the officers at a slow pace, causing the delay. It was observed: - 15. The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner 4 which subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate—Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107: AIR 1987 SC 1353], N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123: JT (1998) 6 SC 242] and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106]. 16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasising that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay—G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142], State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani [(1996) 3 SCC 132: AIR 1996 SC 1623], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1240], State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu [(1996) 10 SCC 635], State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO [(2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan [(2008) 14 SCC 582 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 864]. 5 8. In the present case, there is a delay of only 37 days as per the report of the Registry. The State has explained the delay by saying that the file was initially processed by the Public Prosecutor, District Bilaspur, who forwarded it to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, sent the file to the Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who sought opinion from the Law Department. The file was sent to the competent authority after getting an opinion from the Law Department. Therefore, in the present case, the delay occurred because many officers had to be consulted before filing the appeal. This is a reasonable cause as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd (supra). 9. Therefore, the State has made out a case for the condonation of delay; accordingly, the present application is allowed, and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 10. The present application stands disposed of. 6 Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2026 (Filing No. CR./960/2025). The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 499 of 2025. It be registered. Notice. Mr Suridner Singh Saklani, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. State is directed to supply a copy of the appeal to the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the day. The respondent is directed to furnish the personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when directed and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of acceptance of the appeal. The record of the learned Trial Court be requisitioned, and the matter be listed for hearing in due course. ( Rakesh Kainthla) 02nd June, 2026(ravinder) Judge 7 __June, 2026. (ravinder)