2026:CGHC:11142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2192 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station - Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Johny Sonwani S/o. Mahesh Sonwani Aged About 30 Years (Presently 31 Years), R/o. Near Sonu Pan Thela, Devridih, Police Station - Torwa, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner/State : Shri Vinod Tekam, PL For Respondent : Shri Divyanand Patel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner/State seeking grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, CG in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No.73 of 2022 along with an application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2024) to condone 231 days’ delay in filing the instant petition. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that though the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited, the appellate Court nonetheless possesses wide powers of re-appreciation of Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.11 10:42:40 +0530 Crmp 2192 of 2024 2 evidence, and where such reappraisal reveals that the findings of acquittal are unjust, perverse, or against eh weight of evidence, the appellate Court is fully empowered to reverse the same. Learned State counsel would further submit 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 learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective, which clearly establishes the involvement of the respondent in commission of the alleged offence. Age of the victim stood proved beyond reasonable doubt through the seizure of the admission and date of birth register Ex.P8 and Ex.P8c, yet the learned trial Court committed a grave error in holding that the victim was not minor at the time of incident. FIR has been registered promptly, on the same date of incident, and there was no justification to disbelieve such cogent and reliable evidence. The findings of acquittal are based on minor, imaginary and irrelevant discrepancies, ignoring material evidence, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, as the evidence on record is clear, consistent and sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 3. It has also been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case preferred the present Crmp 2192 of 2024 3 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 bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after delay of 231 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 Vs Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress the submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 231 days in preferring the petition may be condoned. 4. 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. 5. 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 231 days’ delay in filing the application. The only bald and vague grounds which have been raised by the State in the application for condonation of delay are, the functioning Crmp 2192 of 2024 4 of the State Government, where it requires departmental formalities which took unexpected long time for getting departmental sanction. 6. In absence of any specific details either reflected in the application for condonation of delay or having 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. 7. 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 Crmp 2192 of 2024 5 elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful 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.” 8. In the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LR’s Vs. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, 2008 (17) SCC 448 held as under: “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….” 9. In the case in hand, the petitioner apart from making a bald statement about functioning of the State Government where it requires departmental formalities which took unexpected long time for getting Crmp 2192 of 2024 6 departmental sanction, no relevant document is produced. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in absence of sufficient cause. Considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 231 days to which there is no explanation worth acceptance for condoning the said delay, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, in absence of any sufficient ground to condone the delay, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.01/2024) is dismissed, and consequently, the Criminal Misc. Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma