1 2025:CGHC:51650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2142 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Anda, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Soman Das Manikpuri S/o Avadh Das Manikpuri aged about 57 Years R/o Talwar Bhawan, Ward No. 42, Kasaridih, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal is barred by 330 days and due to the official proceedings and for the reason of necessary sanction for filing of the present appeal, the appeal could not be filed within time. 3. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the Respondent/accused by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.28 19:02:21 +0530 2 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS Act”). In the present petition, an application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2025) has also been filed to condone the 330-day delay in filing this appeal for enhancement of the sentence. 4. 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 day’s delay has been explained by the counsel for the petitioner/State seeking condonation of about 330 days’ 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 an unexpectedly long time to get departmental sanction. 5. In the absence of any specific details either reflected in the application for condonation of delay or having been submitted by the counsel for the State, this court finds it difficult to accept the bald and vague averments given in the application for condonation of delay. 6. 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 3 elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in ameaningful 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.” 7. In the matter of “Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LR’s Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and Another”, 2008 (17) SCC 448, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that: “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.…” 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner, apart from making a bald statement about the functioning of the State Govt., where it requires departmental formalities which took an unexpectedly long time to get departmental sanction, no relevant document was produced. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of sufficient cause. Considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay of about 330 days and there is no explanation worth acceptance for condoning the delay, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 9. Further, the Respondent has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, for illegal possession of 05 kg of Ganja, and the learned trial Court sentenced him to R.I. for 02 months and 27 days. The offence of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act does not provide any minimum sentence, which may extend to 10 years. Considering the quantity 4 of Ganja, of 57 years his age and suffering from Cancer disease, the learned trial court exercised its discretion and sentenced him as above mentioned, in which this Court does not find any perversity or disproportionate sentence. 10. Accordingly, in the absence of any sufficient ground to condone the delay, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2025) is dismissed, and consequently, the Criminal Appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok