USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.2178 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 Union of India .. Applicant v/s. Mrs. Manisha Jadhav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.N. Salvi for Applicant. Mr. Taraq Sayad and Sartaj Shaikh for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 5th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act in NDPS Special Case No.13 of 2005. Accused No.1 has been convicted and accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the present respondents, have been acquitted. 2. As per the office note, the Application for seeking leave to appeal is beyond time by 1 year and 76 days. Surprisingly, no explanation has been furnished to justify this inordinate delay for approaching this Court by the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai. It is state that the order was passed on 3.11.2007 and an application for a certified copy of the same was submitted on 27.11.2007. The certified copy was received on 03.12.2007. The application has been filed on or about 29.01.2009 and there is no explanation for the period from 04.12.2007 except to say that it was decided to file an Appeal against the order after obtaining the legal opinion of the Counsel appearing before the lower Court. 3. Mr. Salvi, learned Counsel for the Union of India has invited our attention to the decision in the case of Mangu Ram V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 76 SC 105 in support of his contentions that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1963 are applicable for condonation of delay despite the combine reading of Section 378(4) and 378(5) of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. However, in the instant case, as noted earlier no explanation has been furnished in approaching this Court after a period of 1 year and 76 days and only because the accused No.1 has filed an Appeal before this Court, cannot be the sole reason to condone such an inordinate delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]