IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.5 of 2011 RAM RATANSINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Ref: I.A. No. 178 of 2011 ----------- 02. 03.02.2011 This S.L.A. application has been filed with a delay of seventy days. A separate petition as I.A. No. 178 of 2011 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing of this appeal. The I.A. was heard and the record containing the copy of the impugned judgment was also perused. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl.P.P. were heard mainly on the point of limitation. So far the question of explaining the delay is concerned the simple explanation has been given in the I.A. is that the petitioner/complainant after passing of the impugned judgment of acquittal, contacted his lawyer who advised him at the local Court where the case was tried that the appeal against acquittal will be filed at the same place but subsequently he advised him to go to the District 2 Court and he went there and the lawyer were kept the file for sometime and then he advised that the application for leave to appeal has to be filed before the High Court, hence, he came to this High Court and contacted his lawyer who after preparing the petition filed it before this Court. Thus, the petitioner takes the plea of delay due to wrong advice given by the counsels. But, any advice in writing has not been shown. Even if the ground of advice is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has been negligent and he allowed the matter to move and to be dealt with in a very leisurely manner at his will without showing any expediency for taking step for filing this application before this Court. Thus, finding no reasonable explanation for delay, I do not feel inclined to condone the same. Therefore, this application is dismissed as time barred. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)