IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 33 of 2004 State of Orissa … Petitioner Mr. S. Das, SC (Vigilance) -versus- Surendra Nath Choudhury … Opposite Party CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 07.05.2025 CRLLP No. 33 of 2004 & M.C. No. 16 of 2004 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This application in M.C. No. 16 of 2004 U/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the Petitioner-State prays to condone the delay of 2 years & 206 days in seeking leave to prefer criminal appeal against the order of acquittal of respondent-OP. 3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vig.) submits that the delay in this case was neither intentional nor deliberate, rather the State was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring leave petition in time due to consultative process with the Officers assigned with the matter and therefore, the delay in preferring the petition for leave to appeal may kindly be condoned. Further, Mr. Das also submits on merit that the impugned judgment had been passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the OP-respondent, who was working as Stenographer in the Office of Berhampur Municipality for commission of offence for the charge for offences U/Ss.13(1)(d)/ 13(2) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “PC Act”) on the allegation of demanding Rs.5,000/- towards bribe to put up the file before the Executive Officer for necessary order for allotment of a stall, but found on receiving Rs.1,000/- as installment of such demanded bribe and the judgment having not been passed in proper appreciation of evidence resulting in perversity warranting interference by this Court by way of granting leave to appeal. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Das prays to condone the delay in admitting the petition for grant of leave to appeal. 4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 2 years & 206 days, but the petitioner-State contends that the delay is due to consultative process which prevented the State to prefer the petition for grant of leave to appeal in time, however, this petition for leave to appeal has been filed way back in 2004 seeking grant of leave to challenge the acquittal of the OP- respondent as recorded by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur (Ganjam) in G.R. Case No.67 of 1996(V)/T.R. No.3 of 1997 by recording the judgment way back on 21.07.2001 and in the meanwhile, around 24 years have passed. Delay for shorter duration may be due to certain reasons, but overturning the acquittal of a person after a gap 24 years and putting such person to the rigmarole of the proceeding in an appeal against acquittal may not be in the interest of the justice. Further, even if the delay is condoned, the OP-respondent has to be noticed and the further process has to be followed. The plea of consultative process as advanced for the petitioner-State as a ground for delay does not stand to the scrutiny of law which is stated in the next paragraph. 5. In Post Master General and others Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Apex Court in paragraph 29 has observed as under:- “29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept their usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Department. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 6. Even otherwise, examining the impugned judgment on merit, it appears that the impugned judgment has been passed on 21.07.2001 and the occurrence took place on 09.12.1996, but the respondent-OP was aged about 40 years as on the date of judgment and right now he would be more than 64 years. Thus, he would be enjoying retirement life and at this time, granting leave to appeal against acquittal of respondent-OP by condoning huge delay without sufficient cause would be putting the process back to the harassment of person without any justification. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, if the delay is condoned, the process of appeal against acquittal has to be followed, which would otherwise become a futile exercise in view of the fact that the impugned judgment of acquittal has been found on sound appreciation of evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and facts, neither the State has made out/shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor has any merit for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-OP after a gap of 24 years. 8. In the result, the present CRLLP & M.C. No.16 of 2004 stand dismissed and the leave to appeal is refused to the petitioner. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Designation: Jr. Stenographer