JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Appeal against judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, in Case No.4/3 of 2001/98 titled Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank Limited vs. M/s Himachal Aluminium Company Ltd. 2. It is apt to record that, as on date, respondent No.1- Company is not in existence, however, respondent No.2-Bhag Chand Jain, on the basis of record, has been found to be acting as Director of the Company, at the relevant point of time, i.e. on the date of alleged commission of the offence and, therefore, it has been observed by this Court that presence of Bhag Chand Jain would be sufficient for adjudicating the present matter. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that in present case, on the basis of wrong advice, an appeal against order of acquittal dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Solan, whereas, as per the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, the same was to be filed before this High Court. It has been further submitted that on realising the mistake, the appeal preferred before Sessions Judge, Solan, was withdrawn on 02.11.2017 for filing the same before Competent Court of law as evident from order dated 02.11.2017 passed Additional Sessions Judge, placed on record with this application. 4. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that certified copy of order dated 02.11.2017 was applied on 03.11.2017, which was attested on 12.01.2018, but was delivered on 20.02.2018, and thereafter, matter was submitted to Head Office for legal opinion, and after obtaining the illegal opinion, it was decided to prefer an appeal before this High Court against judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan. Accordingly, appeal has been preferred along with this application for condonation of delay, after obtaining certified copy of the impugned order against judgment of acquittal. 5. It is apt to record that certified copy of order of the Trial Court was applied on 18.01.2019, which was attested on 19.01.2019 and was delivered on 01.02.2019. 6. Accordingly, appeal has been preferred along with this application for condonation of delay, after obtaining certified copy of the impugned order against judgment of acquittal. 5. It is apt to record that certified copy of order of the Trial Court was applied on 18.01.2019, which was attested on 19.01.2019 and was delivered on 01.02.2019. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that though there is delay of 4 years 4 months and 24 days, however, the time spent in pursuing the appeal before the wrong Court, deserves to be condoned, in view of provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act and rest of the delay has been duly explained, as intervening time was spent in seeking legal opinion and approval for filing appeal, because appellant/applicant is a Bank and before approval matter has been dealt with by various levels by different persons and this cumbersome exercise consumed almost one year after withdrawal of appeal from Sessions Court, and therefore delay deserves to be condoned. 7. Learned counsel for the appearing respondents has submitted that from the averments made in the application and details narrated by learned counsel for the applicant, no sufficient cause had been made out, at least from February 2018 till January 2019, and it is a case of grave negligence, but not of sufficient cause, which prevented the filing of appeal within imitation period. 8. The appeal preferred before the Session Court was withdrawn on 02.11.2017, copy whereof was applied on 03.11.2017 and attested on 12.01.2018. It is evident from the copy of order that the appeal was withdrawn to file appeal before Competent Court of law and therefore, there was no doubt to the applicant/appellant or its Managing Director, through whom litigation is being pursued, that appeal was to be preferred against acquittal before the High Court. But at that time, no application for certified copy of impugned order/judgement was submitted. Even, if the time spent in receiving certified copy of the impugned judgment/order from the date of application, i.e. 18.01.2019, till its attestation on 19.01.2019 or even till 01.02.2019, i.e. date of delivery, is excluded, then also, there is no explanation or details on record with respect to action taken by the applicant/appellant or its officials from 20.02.2018 till 18.01.2019. Even, if the time spent in receiving certified copy of the impugned judgment/order from the date of application, i.e. 18.01.2019, till its attestation on 19.01.2019 or even till 01.02.2019, i.e. date of delivery, is excluded, then also, there is no explanation or details on record with respect to action taken by the applicant/appellant or its officials from 20.02.2018 till 18.01.2019. It was already clear to the applicant/appellant that appeal was to be preferred before this High Court, and therefore, it is beyond imagination to construe that, for that purpose, for obtaining legal opinion about one year’s time was spent. 9. No doubt, period of limitation is not material, in case there is sufficient cause which prevented the applicant/appellant from filing the appeal within limitation period, but in present case, I am of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause is made out for explaining the delay cause in filing the appeal within a reasonable period, even after withdrawing the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court vide order dated 02.11.2017. 10. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, reads as under:- “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period”. 11. Applicant/Bank has to show and establish sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period. 12. Though recital of dates of moving of file from one place to another, one office to another may not be a sufficient cause, however, in the present application, even such movement of the file has also not been stated. Details of the officers/officials and time spent by them to give their valuable opinion after sparing time to deal with file from their important pre-occupation has not been given. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd., and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- “28. Details of the officers/officials and time spent by them to give their valuable opinion after sparing time to deal with file from their important pre-occupation has not been given. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd., and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:- “28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 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 the 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 departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 14. The Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs. Union of India and others , reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745 had observed that there may be insufficiency of routine explanation and every day’s delay need not be explained, but reasonable and acceptable explanation is very much necessary to indicate sufficient cause to justify the delay. 15. In the present case, appellant-Company has failed to render reasonable and acceptable explanation to show sufficient cause which prevented the Corporation from filing the appeal within limitation period. 16. The Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-I Vs. 15. In the present case, appellant-Company has failed to render reasonable and acceptable explanation to show sufficient cause which prevented the Corporation from filing the appeal within limitation period. 16. The Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi-I Vs. Design Dialogues India Private Limited , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 327 , had declined to condone the delay on the ground that similar matters were pending before the Supreme Court with observation that unless the case is brought within parameters of Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. case (supra), the Court would not be inclined to condone the delay. 17. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 159 , had declined to condone the delay for absence of any cogent explanation for condonation of delay in terms of Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd (supra). 18. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Sabha Narain and others , reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266 , had declined the request to condone the unexplained delay for showing no sufficient cause by referring Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. (supra), with imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial time. 19. In view of above, discussion, this application is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly stands dismissed along with CRMP-M No.365 of 2019 filing seeking leave to appeal against order of acquittal. Needless to say, proposed Criminal Appeal bearing CR.A. ST No.745 of 2019 also stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.