O^vf Q\° I!Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Applicant Appetiant Non-Applicants Respondenfs Cr.M.P. (PR) No. S121 of 2007. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS 1 Manoj Jharia @ Ajay, S/o Maheshwar Jharia, Aged about - 25 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Kundumkela, P.S. Doomarpali, Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). 2 Nandlal, S/o Gangadhar Sidar, Aged about 25 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Kudumkeia, Nawadih, Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). ApDlication for qrant of ieave to appeal under Section 378(3) ofCr.P.C. Present: Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (02mFebruary,2010) The fotlowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the petitioner's default in not filing an appropriate application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition for grant of teave to appeal under Section 378(3)ofCr.P.C. 2) The petition for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner/ State on 05.11.2007 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2007. Though the petition apparently was barred by time, no application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act forcondonation ofthe delay in filing the petition was filed along with the petition. In fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of more than two years has elapsed since filing of the petition under Section 378 (3) ofCr.P.C. ^ ° 3) In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner/ State for grant of more time for filing an application for condonation ofthe delay. 4) The prayer of the petitioner's counsel made in that behalf, therefore, is rejected. 5) As the petitioner/ State has miserably 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 filed under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C, as barred by time. 6) The petition filed under Section378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of ieave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents No.1 Manoj Jharia @ Ajay and No.2 Nandlal, vide impugned judgment dated 07.07.2007, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.03/2007, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- CbiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu