CGHC010029062023 2026:CGHC:27116-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 286 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Garasiya S/o Veer Singh Garasiya Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Sarita Garasiya S/o Vinod Kumar Garasiya Aged About 43 Years Both R/o Ward No. 2, Sewaniya, Police Station Kalinjar, District - Banswada, Rajasthan ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner/State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG For Respondents : None appears --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.07.2026 Heard Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Addl AG for the petitioner/State. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “i) grant leave to appeal against he impugned judgment of acquittal. ii) be set-aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja, Ambikapur (CG) in ST No.95/2018 and convict the accused/respondents and award suitable punishment to the accused/respondents. Crmp 286 of 2023 2 iii) Proceed against the accused Respondent under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during the pendency of the instant appeal.” 2. The state/petitioner has preferred the instant application for grant of leave to appeal against the findings and judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja, Ambikapur (CG) in S.T. No. 95/2018, whereby, respondent-1 has been acquitted from charges punishable under sections 495, 471, 376(2) (n), 323, 307, 420, 468,471, 506B of IPC, while respondent-2 has been acquitted from charges punishable under sections 495,417,323,307,420,468,471,120B,506B of IPC. 3. Learned State counsel submits that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court nonetheless possesses wide powers of re-appreciation of evidence, and where such reappraisal reveals that the findings of acquittal are unjust, perverse or against the weight of evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to reverse the same. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is patently erroneous, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Despite there being ample, cogent, and reliable evidence available on record establishing the guilt of the accused/respondent, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted him on wholly insignificant, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable grounds. The Court failed to appreciate that, the charges leveled against the respondent are very serious in nature like Crmp 286 of 2023 3 offence of rape and because of this reason the accused is not entitled for any sympathy by this Court. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances and acquitted the respondent on account of minor omissions and contradictions. 4. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case preferred the present petition, however, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery because the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 85 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 85 days in preferring the petition may be condoned. 5. The question for determination before this Court is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for leave to appeal from an order of acquittal. Crmp 286 of 2023 4 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:- “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 with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of 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 deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, 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 bonafide 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 government Crmp 286 of 2023 5 departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:- “5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows: "13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found Crmp 286 of 2023 6 to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of the present appellant." Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case and that, the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. 5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, 2024 INSC 262, wherein, one of us (J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member, after referring to various decisions on the issue, it was in unequivocal terms observed by this Court that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant passage of the same is profitably extracted below: “24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the Crmp 286 of 2023 7 gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Crmp 286 of 2023 8 Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants. XXXXXX 34. In view of the aforesaid, we have reached to the conclusion that the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, the High Court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case. 36. For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” Applying the above legal proposition to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the High Court correctly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing that such inordinate delay was not explained satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was shown for the same, and no plausible reason was put forth by the State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this petition at the threshold. 6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days Crmp 286 of 2023 9 occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously. 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733).” Crmp 286 of 2023 10 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few. 9. Upon considering the matter in its entirety, we find that the State has failed to provide any proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present petition. The only reason cited is that the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, had forwarded a proposal to the Office of the Advocate General for initiating an appeal against the impugned acquittal order dated 28.07.2022. Thereafter, the case was processed, and the present petition was ultimately filed. However, this sequence of events, lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation. Thus, the State has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of 85 days. 10. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under the law to condone such delay. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to establish any convincing or bona fide reason Crmp 286 of 2023 11 for the delay. Therefore, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 85 days in filing the petition against acquittal. 11. Even otherwise, when we examined the merits of the case, we found that the victim is a major girl. She acquainted with the respondent/accused through Jeevan Sathi.com, a matrimonial site and the victim herself had gone to Udaypur, Rajasthan, to meet the respondent/accused and then they visited Mount Abu and Chittorgarh, and ultimately, they had gone to Baswada, Rajsthan. They stayed together in a room in the hotel, booked in name of the victim and she herself, had paid the charges of the hotel. It also came in the evidence of the victim, PW1 that she had gone to Baswada to meet the respondent/accused but instead of taking her to his house, they stayed in a hotel. There are frequent whatsapp chats between the respondent/accused and the victim. From the evidence of the victim, PW1, her brother-in-law, PW3 and her mother, PW9, marriage between the accused and the victim on 25.12.2017 at Devri Chrch could not be rebutted but there is no certificate of marriage. 12. From evidence of the Inspector of Police, PW8, certain documents have been proved but there are manipulation and overwriting in the first column of the documents issued by the Church, Baswada, which was to be filled up before their marriage. The competent person of the said church has also not been examined by the prosecution. Crmp 286 of 2023 12 13. Victim has also executed an affidavit on 12.01.2017, whereas, they got married on 25.07.2017 at Devri Church. Though there are photographs at Ex.P12 marriage card Ex.P10 and P11, has been produced by the prosecution but its authenticity has not been proved by the prosecution. 14. Considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court observed that the prosecution could not produce any cogent and clinching evidence that the respondent had married with the victim at Devri Church by producing relevant record of the Church and only on the basis of invitation card, and photos, it cannot be presumed that respondent/accused and the victim had got married on 25.05.2017. There are material discrepancies in the documents seized by the Police with respect to their membership of the said Church and their marriage ceremony. 15. Learned trial Court has further observed that the victim PW1 in her cross -examination, had admitted that the document Ex.P9 has not been given by her to the Police. She had the xerox copy of the said document and its one copy has been given to the Police and the second copy she retained with her. She has shown her ignorance about the document Ex.P9. The victim has also stated that her brother had given Rs.6 lakhs cash to the respondent/accused but they could not prove its source. There is no cogent evidence about the cash transaction of Rs.6 lakhs to the respondent /accused. No dates or details have been given about its collection. Crmp 286 of 2023 13 16. The learned trial Court has considered the material discrepancies in the evidence of the victim, PW1 and observed that she cannot be considered to be a sterling witness and her evidence does not inspire confidence of the Court. The manner in which the victim is alleged to be suffered with the offence found suspicious by the learned trial Court, and has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offences. 17. The learned trial Court has also elaborately considered the evidence available on record, and has acquitted the accused persons, holding that the prosecution could not establish its case, and acquitted them by giving them benefit of doubt. 18. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC On Line SC 984, has held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 19. Yet in other matter of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in paragraph-25 as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence Crmp 286 of 2023 14 on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 20. After considering the material available on record, as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious about the legal position as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kistoora Ram (supra), and Jafarudheen (supra), in an appeal against the acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, and the trial Court taking one view, revert the accused, the version of the finding of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view for consideration, is not permissible in the law. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 21. Accordingly, the instant petition seeking leave to appeal to file appeal against acquittal of the respondents is hereby dismissed and the acquittal appeal is also dismissed. 22. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.09 10:49:59 +0530