[2025:RJ-JP:26080-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 642/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Appellant Versus Suresh Alias Surya Alias Suraj Son Of Hanuman @ Manya, Resident Of Tunga Road Bus Stand Bassi, At Present Rodigya Ki Talai Dhobiya Ki Phatak Kharad New Ricco Area Bassi Police Station Bassi District Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 14/07/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This is leave to appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan-I accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of four hundred ninety seven days in filing the appeal. 2. The file was sent to the office of the District Magistrate on 28.02.2023, and it took three months for the office of the District Magistrate to forward the file to the Law Department, i.e. on 29.05.2023. The file then remained with the Law Department for more than seven months. The file was sent on 24.01.2024 to office of Govt. Advocate for filing of appeal, and the appeal was filed on 21.09.2024. 3. There is no explanation put forth with regard to delay of seven months for which the file remained pending the department of Law. [2025:RJ-JP:26080-DB] (2 of 2) [CRLLA-642/2024] 4. It would be appropriate to note that it took eight months by office of Govt. Advocates to prepare and file the appeal. 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. 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 one year. 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. 7. The casualness with which application for condonation of delay is filed is evident from the fact that in application blanks were left which were filled with pen. 8. It is a settled law that delay cannot be condoned mechanically in absence of reasonable cause explaining the delay. 9. No case is made for condonation of delay. The application is dismissed. 10. Consequently, the leave to appeal is dismissed as time barred. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/39