IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA GOVERNMENT APPEAL No.14 of 2008 (DB) THE STATE OF BIHAR-------------------APPELLANT. Versus 1. SAROJ KUMAR SINGH, Son of Late Hemraj Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, District Nalanda, at present residing at Mohalla Bari Khanjarpur, P.S. Bzarari, District Bhagalpur. 2. Nandan Sharma(Junior Engineer) N.H. Division No. 2, Bhagalpur, Son of Nathuni Thakur, R/V Shishwapatla, P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran, Motihari. 3. Sanjay Mohan Jha, Son of Dinesh Jha, R/V Karama, P.S. Alam Nagar, District Madhepura, at present Correspondent clerk, N.H. division, Bhagalpur---------------Respondents. ----------- 06. 12.01.2009. Re :- I.A. No. 640 of 2008. I.A. No. 640 of 2008 is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein prayer has been made for condoning the delay of seven months in filing of this Government Appeal, which is against the judgment dated 16.5.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. VI, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1414 of 2005/T.R. No. 751 of 2006 whereunder the respondents were tried for the charges under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code but the trial court did not find the charges proved and accordingly, acquitted the respondents. The grounds taken in the I.A. for condoning the delay is that time was taken for procuring stamps for filing the court fee and for processing the file in different offices of the Government and in obtaining legal opinion for filing the appeal. Mr. Abhimanu Sharma appeared on behalf of the appellant/petitioner and Mr. Amrendra Kumar and Manish Kumar appeared for the respondents. Mr. Abhimanu Kumar submitted that despite best efforts, delay was occurred and he prayed for condoning the same. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of - 2 - the appellant and submitted that ninety days time was already available to the appellant for filing this appeal and despite that the appeal was not filed within that period and seven months delay has been caused for filing the same and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay and the reasons as explained in the I.A. are of ornamental nature and are without giving any explanation of the specific period taken in the delay in different offices of the Government. We do not feel impressed with the prayer of the appellant with regard to any satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Government Appeal and his prayer for condoning the delay is refused. I.A. No. 640 of 2008 is, accordingly, dismissed. As the consequence of the dismissal of the limitation petition, this appeal will also stand dismissed as time barred. Rajesh/ (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V.N.Sinha, J)