1 2025:CGHC:55731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1251 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Rakesh Patel S/o Ramji Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Sal Kendai, P.S. Bemetar, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For petitioner State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the respondent : ……. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 14.11.2025 1. Heard on I.A.No.1/2024 under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. There is delay of 1611 days caused in filing the petition/appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along-with the petition shows that the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment dated 31st August, 2019 passed in CIS No. Special Case 31/2018 whereby the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) after appreciating ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.11.17 15:07:30 +0530 2 the facts and evidence acquitted the respondent-accused from the offence under sections 456, 354, 323 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that after passing the judgment of acquittal, the Law and Legislative Affairs department vide its memo dated 21.10.2019 proposed to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal and thereafter the case was placed before the learned Advocate General on 29.02.2024. He submits that after obtaining necessary documents and instructions with respect to the case, the instant CRMP has been filed and due to departmental procedure, the delay has occurred in filing the instant appeal, which is bona fide and not intentional. He relies on decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 and prays that the delay of 1611 days in filing the instant petition/appeal be condoned. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-State and on perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation application, it appears that the petitioner-State has tried to assert that the long delay of 1611 days in preferring the instant petition/appeal has occurred due to departmental procedure. 5. The Supreme Court has consistently held in numerous judgments that long delays in filing appeals by the State, especially those caused by "departmental procedure" or "office delays", cannot be routinely condoned. The Court has emphasized that the State is not entitled to preferential treatment in matters of limitation and that a "lackadaisical attitude" or "negligence" of government officials is not 3 a sufficient cause to condone inordinate delays. 6. In a 2024 case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2024 INSC 932) the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal due to an excessive delay of 1,788 days (nearly six years), stating that the State failed to provide adequate justification and that such a delay made a mockery of justice. The said dictum of Supreme Court further unequivocally establishes that the judiciary will maintain a strict stance on the condonation of delays, irrespective of the petitioner being a State authority. This judgment underscores the importance of administrative diligence and adherence to legal timelines, ensuring that the mechanisms of justice are not undermined by procedural lapses. Moving forward, state entities must enhance their internal processes to prevent delays, thereby safeguarding governmental interests and upholding the sanctity of the legal system. 7. In view of the above position of law, this Court is not inclined to condone the long delay of more than 4 years i.e., 1611 days in filing the instant petition/appeal merely on the ground of “departmental procedures”. Accordingly, I.A.No. 1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the instant petition/appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao