1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 447 of 2008. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 767 and 768 of 2008. Date of Decision: 31-7-2007. ____________________________________________________________ State of H P. Appellant. Versus Prem Singh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Sh. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondent : None. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral). Heard. The State has sought the leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed on 3-1-2008 by the learned trial Court under Section 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 160/2 of 2004. The appeal was filed in the Court on 26-7-2008. There was delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Thus an application to condone the delay is moved contending that the Additional District Attorney applied for the copy of judgment on 3-1-2008, was prepared on 25-3-2008 and delivered to him on 26-3-2008. Thereafter, it was examined by the District Attorney and the file was submitted to the District Magistrate, Solan for necessary action at his end. The date of sending the file to the District Magistrate is not mentioned. The District Magistrate vide his letter dated 22-5-2008, i.e, after about two months, forwarded it to the Principal Secretary (Home) along-with his comments. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The Home Department sent the file on 29.5.2008 to the Law Department which returned it with its opinion on 11.7.2008, i.e. after one and a half month. The cause of delay at the level of District Attorney, District Magistrate and also Law Department has not been explained neither in the application nor in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home). According to the learned law officer, it is a matter of common knowledge that the Government machinery at every level moves at a slow speed and some reasonable time is taken to process the matter, therefore, the delay in the instant case deserves to be condoned. I do not agree with the learned Law Officer on this score. The instant case is a classical example of delay and serious lapses noticed at every level and it has become almost a routine in every third or fourth case that the appeals are filed after delay of months together without its proper explanation. The State has every authority at its command to expedite the matters and can evolve a method to meet such like situation. Despite taking such a long time in examining this case, the result is nil, as I find no merit in the appeal because out of the four witnesses examined by the prosecution, none of them identified the accused/respondent who is alleged to have driven the tractor and caused the accident. In other words, he is not linked with the offence. Therefore, against the above background, neither there is any sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal nor it is a fit case to grant the leave to appeal. Accordingly the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed, along with the main appeal. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 31, 2008. (bm) 3