IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2011 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1233 OF 2011 STATE THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR ... Applicant Versus MAHANAND NAIK, PRESENTLY LODGED IN CENTRAL JAIL AT AGUADA., ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/State. Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 11th July, 2011 P.C.:- Affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Leave to substitute the document at Annexure "B" to the affidavit, with letter dated 22/03/2011. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal before this Court. The leave is sought in respect of acquittal of one Mahanand Naik who is alleged to be a serial killer, against whom there are several cases of murder. It appears that the acquittal was accepted by the State, without any attempt to file an appeal. This Court was constrained to take suo motu action. This Court registered Suo Motu Criminal Writ Petition No.1 of 2011. 3. At the hearing on 14th March, 2011, the learned Public Prosecutor appeared and sought time. Thereafter, the State has filed this application for condonation of delay. The delay is of a period of 370 days. Mr. Fereira, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the delay was caused because of the gross inaction on the part of the Police Inspector (Incharge) of the Verna Police Station, who saw the negative opinion of the Public Prosecutor that an appeal should not be filed and simply kept the papers in the Police Station, without forwarding them to the State Government. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly accepted that this action is completely unwarranted and that the Police Inspector (Incharge) and S.H.O. was bound to forward the papers to the State Government, since the decision whether to file an appeal or not must be of the State Government according to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Fereira further states that appropriate action is proposed against the concerned SHO. 5. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the Accused relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 733, Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and another v. State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause claimed by the delayed party must be referable to the period prior to expiry of limitation and that events or circumstances arising after expiry of limitation cannot constitute such a sufficient cause. We find that in the present case, the sufficient cause can be said to have arisen during the period of limitation, since the State was prevented from applying its mind and considering whether an appeal should be filed or not, because the SHO kept the file with himself and did not forward it to the State. Even, otherwise, it appears to be a situation where this Court considered the matter important and initiated suo motu action, upon which a statement was made before the Court that the State would itself file an appeal and an application for condonation of delay. 6. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay, subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.2,500/-, recoverable from the concerned SHO. Order accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.