1 2025:CGHC:57424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1434 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Chawale S/o Yadram Aged About 32 Years R/o Barbhatha, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarnagarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector/ District Magistrate, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ----Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Adv For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 2led under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved of the order dated 25-08-2025 (Annexure A- 1), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.37/2025, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the applicant under Section 05 of Limitation Act 2led by the State, whereas the learned appellate Court has not considered that in the application no proper reason assigned for 2ling the appeal which has been 2led delayed by the prosecution. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that; Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.28 12:28:19 +0530 2  Upon the complaint received by the police authorities in relation to the irregularities committed by the accused persons in purchasing the paddy through society and the police authorities after registration of FIR, 2led the charge sheet before the competent Court against the accused person including applicant under Section 420/34, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.  The learned trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, vide its reasoned judgment dated 03-02- 2024 acquitted the accused persons including applicant from the charges framed against them.  Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-02-2024, the State/prosecution has 2led the appeal before the learned appellate Court on 03-02-2025 along with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.  Upon receiving the notice from the court, the applicant made his appearance in the case and 2led the reply to the application and resisted the grounds taken by the prosecution in its application for Condonation of delay and also submitted that if the prosecution wanted to 2le appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 03-02-2024, the appeal ought to have been 2led within the period of limitation as prescribed under the law and since the prosecution has attend all the dates of hearing, the prosecution has complete information about the merits of the case and well aware 3 about the passing of the acquittal order by the trial court, therefore the prosecution ought to have 2led appeal within prescribed period. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the prosecution in the case was in possession of all the relevant documents of the case as complete 2le of the case was in possession of the prosecution including the charge sheet and all other relevant documents, cause of which the prosecution could 2le the appeal within the period of limitation, whereas the prosecution has 2led the appeal after a period of one year from the judgment of acquittal and the said delay is too much for 2ling the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution in its application has not stated proper reasons for delay in 2ling the appeal, whereas the prosecution ought to have given details of day to day delay in 2ling the appeal and neither they have 2led any documents in support of cause of delay which is mentioned in the application for delay. The prosecution has in its application stated that the certi2ed copy of documents have been received in the month of August 2024, whereas the appeal has been 2led on 03- 02-2025 and in the application, the prosecution has not explained any cause for the delay, cause of which the delay in 2ling the appeal not properly explained. The delay in 2ling the appeal has been caused due to the negligent act of the prosecution itself, which is evident from the records, which is deliberate act on the part of prosecution and the delay in 2ling the appeal could not be condoned, cause of which the appeal is deserves to be dismissed 4 on the ground of delay itself. Copy of the reply is 2led as Annexure A-3. It is also important to note that the delay caused in getting the approval from the higher policy authorities for 2ling appeal is no ground, for which the prosecution is entitled for the condonation of delay and cause of which, the learned appellate court has committed error in condoning the delay, while passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2025. Therefore he prays that the impugned order may be set aside and also dismiss the appeal 2led by the State/prosecution on the ground of delay. 5. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that vide order dated 03.02.2024, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons including applicant from the charges framed against them, however the state/prosecution has 2led the appeal before the learned appellate Court on 03.02.2025 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellate Court has allowed the application under Section 5 of limitation Act 2led by the State/prosecution condoning the delay. 8. It is admitted fact that on 25.08.2025, the Additional Session Judge Sarangarh has passed the order after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant. 9. It has to be borne in mind that a bona2de mistake on the part of counsel or the prosecution agency is a good ground for 5 condonation of delay in approaching the right forum in the right kind of proceedings. Generally the courts adopt a liberal approach in considering application for condonation of delay on ground of su@cient cause under Section 5 of the Act. In this case, the Appellate Court had decided the application stating therein that su@cient cause has been given by the prosecution in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10.In light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by both sides, this Court 2nds no in2rmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 25- 08-2025 passed by the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court, in its discretion, has recorded cogent reasons for condoning the delay and has rightly taken a liberal approach keeping in view the settled principles governing applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly in matters concerning appeals 2led by the State. The grounds urged by the applicant do not demonstrate any perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 11.Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the applicant. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti