HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 324 of 2012 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the record. 3. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused/respondent is not present even in the revised list. 4. This government appeal has been preferred by the State-appellant against the judgement and order dated 06.02.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kairana Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No. 1384 of 2010 (State Vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma) by which the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 5. Even previously on 04.09.2025 learned counsel for the accused- respondent was not present and as a last opportunity the matter was adjourned and was directed to be listed peremptorily. The following order was passed: "1. List revised. 2. Sri V.D. Ojha, learned AGA for the State-Appellant is present. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondent is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 3. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed by learned counsel for the accused-respondent till date. 4. Since, learned counsel for the accused-respondent is not present today even in the revised list, as a last Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.A. Counsel for Respondent(s) : , Pramod Kumar Singh State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Devendra Kumar .....Respondent(s) opportunity, the matter is adjourned for today. 5. Let the matter be listed on 25.09.2025 peremptorily." 6. Today the matter is listed peremptorily. This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 94 days. A delay condonation application supported with an affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the State-appellant while placing para 13 of the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application has submitted that the delay has occurred on the part of the office of the District Magistrate concerned for supplying of the records of the case to the law department of the government and the delay has occurred due to procedure and workload of the office of the District Magistrate concerned which is not deliberate, the same reads as under: "13. That the delay which has occurred, on the part of office of the District Magistrate, Prabudh Nagar for supplying the records of the case to the law department is unintentional and is highly regretted and had occurred due to the procedure and workload of the office of District Magistrate, Prabudh Nagar and the delay in filing the Government Appeal is not deliberate." 8. In so far as the delay is concerned, it is admitted that there is delay in filing of the appeal and the delay was only due to lethargy at the office of the District Magistrate concerned. It is trite law that the delay has to be satisfactorily explained. 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 in the present case the same is evident. 9. In view of the same, the delay condonation application is dismissed and the appeal be consigned to the records. 10. Office to communicate this order to the concerned trial court/District and Sessions Judge for information and necessary follow-up action. September 25, 2025 M. ARIF GOVAD No. 324 of 2012 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad