€ .,.! c^ ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. ApDlicant Appellant Respondents I.Cr.C. (PR1 No. 3218 of 2005 State of Chhattisgarh through District MagNrate, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Disamber Sinah, S/o Bahbal Ram t?* 'l Gond, aged about 52 years. 2. Dilsai S/o Disamber Singh aged about 36 years. 3. Mohar Singh S/o Thakur Ram Gond, aged about 24 years. Alt are R/o Village Udaipur, Baigapara, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ApDlication Tor arant of leave to appeal U/S 378 (31 and memo of appeal u/s 378 (11 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate, for the State/petitioner. ORDER itli (12mJu!y, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the petitioner's default of not filing an appropriate application for condonation of the delay in fiting the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. 2) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State underSection 378(3) of Cr.P.C. on 05-09-2005 for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Disamber ^ Singh, Dilsai and Mohar Singh vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.04.2005, is reported to be time barred by as many as 45 days. 3) No application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed along with the petition. 4) In fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of about 5 years has elapsed since filing of the petition on 05-09-2005. . 5) In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned Deputy Government Advocate for grant of more time in that behalf. 6) The above prayer of learned Deputy Government Advocate, therefore, is rejected. 7) As the petitioner/ State has failed in showing any cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the petition as barred by time. 8) The petition filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, is dismissed as 'time-barred'. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge -)