2026:HHC:31512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 3224 of 2023 Reserved on: 27.7.2026 Date of Decision: 30.7.2026. State of H.P. …. Petitioner Versus Subhash Chand …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Applicant/Appellant : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that a certified copy of the judgment was applied on 03.09.2022, which was attested on 26.09.2022 and delivered on 27.09.2022. Learned District Attorney/Public Prosecutor Kangra examined the matter. The case was sent by the District Magistrate, Kangra, to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:31512 Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of HP to take a final decision, which was received in the Home Department on 31.10.2022. The case was referred to the Law Department for seeking the opinion, and the file was received on 09.11.2022 with the observation that the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court against the judgment of the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 32-II/2009. However, the judgment of Criminal Case No. 35/2 of 2009 was annexed. The photocopy of the judgment of the learned Trial Court was annexed to the file. The District Magistrate, Kangra, was requested to send the complete record on 14.11.2022, who sent the record on 09.12.2022. The file was again sent to the Law Department, and it was returned with the observation that the charge sheet, statement of the accused and evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court were not annexed. The District Magistrate, Kangra was requested to send the complete record. The complete record was received on 19.06.2023, and the case was referred to the Law Department. The Law Department gave an opinion on 30.06.2023 that the case was not fit for filing a further appeal. The District Magistrate, Kangra, was requested to examine the matter and submit the same with specific recommendations. The decision was taken by the competent authority on 14.8.2023 3 2026:HHC:31512 regarding filing of the appeal. There is a delay of 254 days, which is not intentional but due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application. It was asserted that a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent with the lapse of time, which should not be taken away lightly. The contents of the application show that the applicant was grossly negligent in pursuing the matter. There is absence of due diligence and no sufficient cause is made out. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. This Court framed the following issues on 27.09.2024:- (1) Whether there are sufficient reasons for the condonation of delay? (2) Relief. 4. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, but no evidence was produced by the State. 5. I have heard Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/State and Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 4 2026:HHC:31512 6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/State submitted that the delay occurred because of the consultation with various authorities. The delay was not intentional but because of the fact that the State has to seek the opinion of various functionaries. The delay in the case of the State should not be seen as in a case of a private individual. The applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 7. Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the functionaries of the State were negligent in pursuing the matter. The State cannot take advantage of the negligence of its officials to seek condonation of the delay. The applicant has not shown any sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 in support of his submissions. 8. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5 2026:HHC:31512 9. The application mentions that the Law Department had observed on 09.11.2022 that the certified copy of the judgment of the learned Trial Court was missing. Thereafter, the District Magistrate was requested to send the complete record. However, the Law Department again noticed on 20.12.2022 that the record was deficient. The judgment of the learned Trial Court, the charge sheet, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC and the evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court were required. Thus, the averments in the application show that despite the observation of the Law Department that the record was incomplete, the District Magistrate, Kangra had submitted an incomplete record on the second occasion as well. 10. The District Magistrate was requested to send the complete record on 22.12.2022, and the file was received on 19.06.2023. The application is silent as to why the complete record was not sent for about six months. An opportunity was given to the State to bring any evidence on record to justify the delay of six months in sending the complete file to the Home Department. However, no person appeared before the Court, and no explanation was provided. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 6 2026:HHC:31512 563: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 1234 that when no explanation was provided for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period, there was a delay at every stage and no explanation was provided for the delay, the delay cannot be condoned. It was observed at page 573:- 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file a better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted clearly show that there was delay at every stage, and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved, including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed of competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of a plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or 7 2026:HHC:31512 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 a 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 swerved for the benefit of a few. 11. In the present case also, the applicant has not provided any explanation for the delay. The applicant has only mentioned the dates on which the file was received by the various functionaries, which is not sufficient. Further, the application does not mention any reason for not sending the complete record for six months. Therefore, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant had a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within limitation. 8 2026:HHC:31512 12. The application also mentions that the Law Department recommended that the case was not fit for filing the appeal. It has not been mentioned as to why the opinion of the Law Department was ignored. If the opinion of the Law Department was to be ignored, it should have been ignored at the very first instance, and the time spent in obtaining such an opinion cannot be condoned. 13. Therefore, the applicant has failed to make out a sufficient cause in its favour. Hence, the present application fails and is dismissed. Cr. Appeal (ST) No.11067 of 2023 14. Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the present proposed appeal does not survive and is disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th July, 2026 (Chander)