2025:CGHC:19433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 413 of 2014 Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through Regional Officer, C.G. Environment Conservation Board, Regional Office, Near Tah. Office, Rampur, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. South Eastern Coal fileds Ltd. And Anr. 2. Shri J.S. Prasad, Chief General Manager, M/s. S.E.C.L. Gevra Project, Gevra Area, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Through Officer In-Charge Accused No.2 ---- Respondent _________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner - Shri Abhijit Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 - Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dinesh Bhole & Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocates . For Respondent No. 2 - Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29 /04/2025 1. An application for grant of leave to appeal under section 378(4) read with section 372 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12/01/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in complaiant case No. 25/09 along-with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. Heard on application for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to the knowldge of acquittal of the respondent when the petitioner enquired from ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.12 09:45:34 +0530 -2- the local counsel who was appearing in the case Court below and thereafter collected all relevant documents pertaining to the case and approached before this Hon’ble Court due to lack communication and procedure knowldge, the present application could not be filed during the period of limitation which is a bonadfied mistake on the part of the petitioner. Therefore he submits that the application may be allowed and delay in filing the application for leave to appeal may be condoned. 4. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate submits that the impugned order of acquittal was passed on 12/10/2012 and the instant application for leave to appeal was filed on 29/04/2014. The delay is enormous and the reasons which have been assigned donot constitute sufficient cause for condoning the dealy. He submits that period of limitation for filing leave to appeal is six months and it could not be assumed that for the six month, the petitioner was is not in touch with his counsel. Therefore he submits that the application may be dismissed consequently the application for leave to appeal may also be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also peruse the record. 6. Admitedly the impugned order was passed on 12/10/2012. It’s a case of petitioner itself and naturally the petitioner would be aware of the proceeding carried out by him before the learned J.M.F.C.. Though in the application it has been mentioned that as soon as the petitioner came to the knowldge of the impugned order, all the relevant docments were collected and due to lack of communication and procedure knowldge the present appeal could not be filed in time. The application does not disclose as to when the petitioner came to the knowldge of the impugned order. It also does not indicate as to when the petitioner contacted the local counsel. Though no specific date is required to be mentioned however -3- atleast some assertion of month in which the petitioner met his local counsel could have been disclosed in the application. 7. Of course the Court may take a liberal apporach in condoning the delay, however, the explanation offered by the petitioner in application does not appear to be bonafied and in the opinion of the Court does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Period of delay may not always be a reason to reject the application but it is the sufficient cause which determines the decision of the application for condonation of delay. Sometime looking to the sufficient cause shown long delay may be condoned whereas a shorter period of delay in absence of sufficient cause may not be condoned. 8. Taking into the consideration fact and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsel and also the reason assigned in the application, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal. 9. As a result the application for condonation of delay is dismissed consequently application under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- d/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish