1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3447 of 2024 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gyan Das S/o Butan Das Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhitthikala Majhapara, Beside House of Jhunnudas, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manoj Das S/o Gyan Das Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhitthikala Majhapara, Beside House of Jhunnudas, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 10.10. 202 5 1. The present Criminal Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner/State seeking restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 1694 of 2022 which was dismissed by virtue of peremptory order dated 17.04.2023. In the present petition an application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2024) has also been filed to condone 20 months delay in filing this petition for restoration. 2. A bare perusal of the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay would itself reflect that no justification or plausible explanation for each days delay has been explained by the counsel for the 2 petitioner/State seeking condonation of more almost 20 months delay in filing the application. The only bald and vague ground which have been raised by the State in the application for condonation of delay is the functioning of the State Govt. where it requires departmental formalities which took unexpected long time for getting departmental sanction. 3. In absence of any specific details either reflected in the application for condonation of delay or having submitted by the counsel for the State, this court find it difficult to accept the bald and vague averments given in the application for condonation of delay. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. and Another, 2010 (5) SCC 459, held in para 14 & 15 as under : “14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves 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, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106.” 3 5. In the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LR’s Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, 2008 (17) SCC 448 held as under: “17…….It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and `do not slumber over their rights….” 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner apart from making a bald statement about functioning of the State Govt. where it requires departmental formalities which took unexpected long time for getting departmental sanction, no relevant document is produced. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of sufficient cause. Considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay of more than 20 months and there is no explanation worth acceptance for condoning the delay, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, in absence of any sufficient ground to condone the delay, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2024) is dismissed, and consequently, the Criminal Misc. Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder