^ <'? ^ Cx^P ^3'/?' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Appellant Applicant Respondents M.Cr.C.fPRl No. 2479 of 2005 State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, P.S. Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mahesh Ram S/o. Tenu Ram, aged about 22 years oceupation - student, viilage - Bhitwa, Dhabpara, P.S. & Tehsil - Sitapur. Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Kewal S/o Budhi, aged about 60 years, occupation - Cultivation, R/o village - Bhitwa, Dhabpara, P.S. & Tehsil - Sitapur, Distt. Surguja. ApDlication for arant of leave to appeal U/S 378 (31 and memo of appeal u/s 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/petitioner. ORDER (08th July, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This matter is listed today for orders on the petitioner's default of not filing an appropriate application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2) The petition filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. on 13-07-2005 for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Mahesh Ram and Kewal vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2005, is reported to be time barred by as many as 21 days. 3) No application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. was fited along with the petition. In fact, no such application has been flled till date though a period of about 5 years hasetapsed since fiting ofthe petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. on 13-07-2005 and inspite of grant of an opportunity in that behalf by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). 4) In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned State counsel for grant of more time in that behalf. 5) The above prayer of learned State counsel, therefore, is rejected. 6) As the petitioner/ State has miserably failed in showing any cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay in flling the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the petition as barred by time. 7) The petition filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, is dismissed as 'time-barred-s Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge subbu