HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 127 of 2013 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 Juned Alam and Sri Mohammad Alam learned counsel for the accused/respondent nos. 1 to 8 are not present even in the revised list. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 05.07.2011 passed by IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2001 (State Vs. Abdul Salam and others) by which the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 5. This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 520 days. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing the application for condonation of delay has submitted that the delay has been caused on administrative grounds. It is submitted while placing the delay condonation application and affidavit in support of the same that the judgement and order of acquittal is dated 05.07.2011 after which the opinion of DGC (Criminal) was sent to the State through the District Magistrate concerned on 20.08.2011 and the District Magistrate forwarded the same on 23.09.2011 to the State Government after which the State Government passed a Government Order on 14.02.2012 for filing of the appeal and in the meantime the limitation Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.A. Counsel for Respondent(s) : , Juned Alam, Mohammad Alam State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Parvez And Others .....Respondent(s) of filing it expired on 04.10.2011, paragraph 2 to 8 of the affidavit in support of delay condonation application has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that as such delay is explained. In so far as the delay on the part of the State Government from 23.09.2011 to 14.02.2012 is concerned, the same is not at all explained. 7. The law with regard to the same is trite. The explanation has to be tendered on day to day basis and mere vague and passing reference of events cannot be termed as explanation. 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 the in the present matter the same is evident. 8. In view of the same, the said application is dismissed and the matter be consigned to the records. 9. Office to communicate this order to the concerned trial court/District and Sessions Judge for information and necessary follow-up action. September 22, 2025 AS Rathore GOVAD No. 127 of 2013 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad