/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.900 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4554 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Jahangir Yusuf Landage ...Respondent Ms.Alpa T. Jhaveri APP for the State. Mr.Shekhar Jagtap i/b. M/s.J. Shekhar & Co. for Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C:- 1. Heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing this application for leave to file an appeal. Delay is of 1351 days. In Para 3 of the application, it is mentioned that certified copy of the order was received on 30/11/2002 and matter was assigned to the Additional Public Prosecutor on 11/12/2006 for drafting the application for leave to file an appeal challenging the judgment and order. It is stated in para 2 that Public Prosecutor, Sangli sent his opinion on 24/03/2003 to the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya and thereafter, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya issued / 2 / a Government Resolution on 01/04/2003. This was forwarded to the Public Prosecutor's Office, High Court, Mumbai. It is stated that since certified copy of the judgment and order was not sent alongwith the Government Resolution, papers were sent back to the Law and Judiciary Department, and thereafter, papers were returned to the said office on 08/12/2006. No explanation has been given as to why papers remained with the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya from 05/11/2003 to 08/12/2006. Further, though certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was received on 30/11/2002, certified copy was sent to the Public Prosecutor's office on 08/12/2006. No sufficient explanation has been given for the gross delay caused in filing this application. 3. It is a well settled position in law that legal right accrues in favour of the Accused after he is acquitted by the Trial Court and unless sufficient cause is shown by the Government for the delay caused, his right should not be taken away by condoning the unexplained delay. In my view, no case is made out for condonation of delay caused in filing this application. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Hence, application for leave to file an appeal does not survive. V.M. KANADE, J.