[2025:RJ-JP:26453-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 622/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Appellant Versus 1. Vikram Singh Son Of Ramveer, Aged About 27 Years, Res- ident Of Nagla Khushal Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur (Raj) 2. Ramveer Singh Son Of Munshi, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Nagla Khushal Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur (Raj) 3. Bhagwan Dei Wife Of Ramveer Singh, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Nagla Khushal Police Station Chiksana District Bharatpur (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini,PP For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 16/07/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J:- 1. This is leave to appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities cases), Bharatpur, Raj. accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of two hundred and sixty seven days in filing the appeal. 2. The facts as pleaded in the application for condonation are that the certified copy of the judgment dated 11.09.2023 was sent to the office of the District Magistrate on 17.10.2023. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Law Department on 03.11.2023. The [2025:RJ-JP:26453-DB] (2 of 3) [CRLLA-622/2024] case was found fit for filing the appeal, accordingly, the file was sent to the office of Government Advocate on 10.07.2024 and the appeal was filed on 20.09.2024. 3. There is no explanation put forth with regard to delay of more than eight months by the department of Law to process the file and the time taken in the office of Government Advocate. 4. The State machinery working on its own leisure pace in itself cannot be ground for condoning the delay. Moreso, with the expiry of the limitation period the right of the accused who has been acquitted starts to crystallize. Reference in this regard be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited. And Anr. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563 wherein, it is held that law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used. 5. The officers dealing with such files cannot lost sight of that sword of litigation cannot be allowed indefinitely to hang on an acquitted accused. The other aspect is that there is no substantial reason given for condoning the delay of more than two hundred and sixty seven days. 6. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459 has held that a liberal view should be adopted for condoning short period of delay but strict approach is required in cases where the delay is inordinate. [2025:RJ-JP:26453-DB] (3 of 3) [CRLLA-622/2024] 7. It is settled law that delay cannot be condoned mechanically in absence of reasonable cause explaining the delay merely on the ground that application for condonation has been filed by the Government. 8. No case is made out for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the leave to appeal is dismissed as time barred. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /48