cftiAp b^UAO'l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEVIS80N BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRS RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR. JJ. ApDlicant Cr.!VI.P.(PR)No. 3848 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate District Durg (C.G.) Versus Mahesh Verma, S/o Nanchuk Verma, Aged 29 years, Occupation fruit selling business, R/o Kurmipara Ward No. 17, Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, District Durg Application for arant of leave to appeal under Sectlon 378 13} and Memorandum ofAppeat underSectton 378(1) ofthe Code of CriminaS Procedure. 1973 Non-apDEIcants Preserit : Shri D.K. Gwatre, Govt. Advocate forthe appiicant/State. ORDER fPassed on 09tn September. 201 1) Per T.P. Sharma. J. 1. Heard. 2. By fiilng this petition for ieave to appeal, petitioner has chaiienged legaiity and propriety of the order of acquittal dated 30.03.2010 passed by Additiona! Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, District Durg, in S.T.No.27/2008, whereby iearned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, acquitted regspondent of charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 ofthe l.P.C. 3. Present ieave to appeai has been preferred after 372 days of Its iimitation. ,^^^ \ 4. Learned Govt. Advocate for the appEicant submits that after deducting the period spent in obtaining certified copy, this appeal Es barred by 246 days of its limitation. 5. Definiteiy, as per certified copy, petitioner has filed an application for obtaining certifled copy after more than 8 months of the judgment. Grounds taken in I.A.No.1/2011 for condonation of delay in filing petition are as foilows:- 1. It is submitted that the State has fiied the instant appeai against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.09.2010, passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bemetara, District Durg in S.T.No.27/2008. 2. That, the appeal Is barred by .......................... days of Ijmitation. 3. That, the deiay in filing the appea! has been occurred due to the departmental formalities and working of the government machinery which is not deliberate but bonafide. 6. Ground No.3 reveais that delay in filing the appeal has been occurred due to departmental formaiitles and working of the government machinery, which is not deiiberate but bonaflde. Even in para 2 of their application they have not mentioned days by which appeai is bared by I'imitatlon. Para 2 is still blank. Petltioner has filed application for certified copy after eight months of judgment and thereafter filed the petitlon wlthout expiainlng cause of delay. There can be difference between state and third party. State is also required to expialn the circumstances and cause whereby they have prevented in filing the appeal before the prescribed period of iimitation. In the present petition, petitloner has apparently falied to show any cause much iess than sufficient cause. .^^^-.- t % :%^,...// -Ay Vijay 7. ConsequentEy, we do not find any cause for condonation of delay in filing petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. 8. As a resuit, Cr.M.P.(PR)No.3848/201 1 stands dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge