1 2026:CGHC:20350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1620 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superitendent Of Police, State Economic Offence Wings, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - S.K.S. Sisodiya And Others S/o Rampal Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 58 Years, Ex. Prescribed Officer, Bhilai Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chinta Paul, S/o Gopal Chandra Paul, Aged About 65 Years, Manager, Bhilai Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Horilal Swarnkar, S/o Hiralal, Aged About 65 Years, Ex. Branch Officer, Bhilai Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pramod Kumar Chinchole S/o Vasudeo Rao, Aged About 60 Years, Assistant Manager, Bhilai Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Alok Mahawar, S/o B. L. Mahavar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o B-140, Kavitanagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sudhir Shrivastava S/o Parmeshwar Shrivastava, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 36 Birdi Colony, Near A-1 Bakery, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Santosh Agrawal S/o Ramdhyan Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Siddhartha Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Rituraj @Rituparna Mishra, S/o Rajnarayan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Geetanagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For the State/petitioner : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy.G.A. and Mr. Narayan Prasad, P.L. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.05.01 16:33:37 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 1, 5, 7 and 8 : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent no. 4 Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 01.05.2026 1. The notice issued to respondent No. 6 has returned unserved. 2. Heard on I.A. no. 01/2017, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that after passing the order of acquittal, the Law and Legislative Affairs department proposed to challenge the impugned order of acquittal and thereafter the case was placed before the learned Advocate General. He submits that after obtaining necessary documents and instructions with respect to the case, the instant appeal has been filed and due to departmental procedure, the delay has occurred in filing the instant appeal, which is bona fide and not intentional. He relies on decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132 and prays that the delay of 196 days in filing the instant appeal be condoned. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and submits that in paragraph 4 of I.A. No. 01/2017, it is 3 clearly mentioned that the proposal from the Law Department was received by the Office of the Advocate General on 17.03.2017, but the delay from March 2017 to December 2017 has not been properly explained, therefore, the aforesaid application and the present petition are liable to be dismissed. They rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, (2024) INSC 932. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. By the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.01.2017, the respondents had been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Further, respondent No. 1 had been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The delay in the present case is 196 days. The case law cited by the respondents party in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (Supra) involved a delay of 1,788 days. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence in the instant case, this Court finds that the delay of 196 days occurred on account of departmental procedure is neither inordinate nor unjustified. The decision cited by the respondents is distinguishable on facts and does not support their case. Accordingly, upon considering the submissions of the applicant/State, I find it appropriate to allow I.A. No. 01/2017. 4 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2017 is allowed and the delay of 196 days in filing of the instant petition is hereby condoned. 8. The present petition has been filed under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal. 9. Heard on admission. 10.The petition being arguable is admitted for hearing. 11.Having perused the impugned judgment and other materials available on record, the application is allowed and leave to appeal is granted. 12. Registry is directed to register the present Cr.M.P. under the head of Acquittal Appeal. 13. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P., stands disposed off. 14. Records are available. 15. List it after summer vacation, 2026. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.