State of H.P. vs. Rajinder Thapa Cr. MP(M) No. 2933 of 2025 Reserved on 14.08.2026 19.08.2026 Present: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State. None for the respondent. The appellant/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of 49 days' delay in filing the appeal. 2. It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied for on 31.05.2025, which was attested on 18.06.2025 and was delivered on 20.06.2025. Learned District Attorney/Public Prosecutor, Sirmaur, examined the matter after receipt of the certified copy and sent it to the District Magistrate, Sirmaur, who sent it to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for taking a final decision. The case was examined and referred to the Law Department for seeking the legal opinion, and the opinion was received on 26.09.2025. The competent authority decided on 03.10.2025 that an appeal has to be filed. Hence, the learned Advocate General was requested to file the appeal. The delay occurred because of the consultation with various departments. Hence, the application. 2 3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared through Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, but no Power of Attorney was filed, and when the matter was listed on 14.08.2026 for consideration, none appeared. 4. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the delay occurred because the State had to consult various agencies before filing the appeal. The delay was not intentional and was due to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by condoning the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6. As per the Registry, there is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The applicant has stated on affidavit that the delay occurred because the applicant had to consult its various agencies. The timeline of sending the file has also been provided in the application. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 3 459, that the Courts are generally liberal in condoning the delay of short duration. It was further held that a certain latitude is permissible in case of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities. 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 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]. 4 7. 4 7. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to certain latitude while condoning the delay. 8. In the present case, there is a delay of only 49 days in filing the appeal, which is not significant and can occur because of consultation between various departments. Therefore, the same can be condoned as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. Cr.A (A-SB) 11603 of 2025 10. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned as per order passed in Cr.MP No.2933 of 2025. 11. It be registered. 12. Let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within three days. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th August, 2026 (Nikita)