1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.4 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus 1. SATYA NARAIN RAI, S/o. Sidheshwar Rai, R/o. Village- Belhiya, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Mahesh Rai, S/o. Bishundeoo Rai, r/o. Village- Shivraha, Chaturbhuj, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. 4 19.02.2009 There is delay of 51 days, the condonation of which is prayed by filing a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, the learned Addl.P.P. referred to the statements stated in the petition and argued that the delay occurred due to some delay made in the processing of the filing in different offices of government department. It is stated in the petition that the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2008 was obtained by the District Magistrate on 09.08.2008 and it was handed over to the Addl. Public Prosecutor on 19.08.2008 and the memo of appeal was presented to the District Magistrate on 26.08.2008. Then it is stated that the District Magistrate Muzaffarpur sent a proposal to the law department on 30.08.2008 and law department 2 demanded relevant papers on 9.9.2008 and that on 22.09.2008 the papers were demanded from the Superintendent of Police who sent it on 18.10.2008. It is further stated in the petition that the relevant papers were sent to under Secretary Law Department on 29.10.2008 and that time was consumed there and the file was sent to Advocate General on 14.11.2008 who handed over the file to the concerned Addl. P.P. on 18.12.2008 who sent the same on 20.11.2008 to the District Magistrate and that thereafter the appeal was filed. The above statement as mentioned in the petition about movement of files in preparation of the memo of appeal and consultation with the government officers shows that the things have moved in the government offices at very leisurely pace without their being any explanation as to why delays were made at each and every stages. It was mentioned in the petition that the certified copy of the order was received by the District Magistrate on 09.08.2008 but the certified copy filed with the memo of appeal shows that it was prepared and delivered on 28.07.2008 which also indicate that the 3 certified copy had been delivered after ten days of the trial court’s judgment. In para-8 of the petition it has also been mentioned that delay was also caused in swearing affidavit of the memo of appeal as the person who had to swear had been promoted but this is not acceptable position because even if an officer is promoted the next man remains in his charge and he can do the work. Thus hearing we find that there is delay of substantial period and there is no explanation for it. 90 days of statutory time was already available to the appellant for filing the appeal but the appeal was not filed within the period. In such view of the matters, the prayer for condoning the delay is refused and the limitation petition stands rejected. As a consequence of the refusal of the delay in the filing of this appeal, this appeal is also dismissed as time barred. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V. N. Sinha, J.)