'SABp SZi. SB AU1 se Aq psjjea, atui} aq 01 psuodej si 966l'£0'6Spsiep iBHinbae p }U9iu6pnf psuBndtU! s^ tsuieBe S661-01-OS uo 'o'd'-iO P (e)8Z£ uoitOBg jspun 3tB}S /-lauoitjiBd eq} Aq psiy uoitiisd 941 (z •pjesq eje ssiyed sqi jo^ issunoo peujBe-] Aq passed SBAA }jnoo BLJI p jopjo 6uiAAOijoj 9L|i DJ' issunoo p9UJB9| 'pesejd '>i'v ULJS •j9UO!t!}8d/8}B}s 341 JOj '9}eooApv i\OQ A^ndSQ p9UJB8| 'BJ4SI|Aj |!U>|V WS if» '•^f ('d'W) efnSjes 'usiQ 'jndB>||quiv 'jndfey uoi^eig eoijod 'jeBeuBjK - IUBJ£)G/y •SJB3A Q2 paBe 'B>|iUBd |B-| ejiyqtueo 0/3 |eiijB< ('d'w) BfnBjes •P,SIQ 'jn' 80110(3 qE jiqujv 'Jnai "41 'd'IAi j - UOI)B1S 10 3 aosE^^ni f 3) No application for condonation of the delay in iliing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. was fiied along with the petition. In fact, no such application has been fiied till date thouah a period of about 15 years has elapsed since filing of ths petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. on 30-10-1995. 4) In this view of the matter, we d6 not find any justification in the prayer of learned Deputy Government Advocate for grant of more time in that behaif. 5) The above prayer of learned Deputy Government Advocate, therefore, is rejected. 6) As the petitioner/ State has miserably failed in showing any cause, much tess sufficient cause Tor the delay of 125 days in fliing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., v/e are !eft with no other option, but to dismiss the petition as barred by time. 7) The petition filed by the petitioner/Sti 378(3) of Cr.P.C., for arant of leave to a under Section al aaainst the ai viae i ed 29.03.1995, therefore, is dismissed as 'time-barred' Sd/- ChiefJustice Subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge