©HMamtSGARH^^SUE.ASPUK^ DIYISI©!NaSgN©H i 31Q.S'•'SS-'-'f^it-SS^K'^Vfr'St-^ ;HG>M'Bl.S:^tiRi M.er.G.iPBaiNo.SlBSof^OQe ^ ftOBeUarrt State of Gl'^attisgarh, througft the D^:rwtNlagis):Fate,Jashpi.ir^CG^ WY Resportdent •AGCusettvi;.;'' Versus' ,1-'' :::;1.:-':;' :• ;".;:;-: ^inodfc^tnar, Sto shri^^iTOstw^ ^e(t^^tayt?^3:::: yeais,.gR?o^.¥!iiagfe BamBaRn'rtfflda^ol^lgfiUce&iStatio^ Karis8t56l,iDistt-Jashpur(CG) ADolJC^ionfordraritofteavetoafieeat l^r^.ent : ShHKishore Bhadu ^^.t^st^:;.'v.;-:::'-':^^'-:.;;a.^r^^ .?'?'';.A:..^!2iliJt!|y|.^S^..}t.^ THe ^ltowii^ Qrder ^ RajeevlGypfc^:C.J.;:l:;' ,.^.,.:J^:'.,;^ This ma^ is listed to^ clefautt ofnot fiting an appi^nate^^^ delay'tnfflin9^he;petffiony^^SedtOn3%(3)brthepr.P.&, 2)TtiepetMonfUedl^the^etitiODer<State^ <rftheGrP,e.,on 19.01.200&ft^ theacqyittalWr^ponderrt^^u^^ jydgm^clated 08^1.20^^^ ¥Bat|^tby:as|n|ai^^34I^a^^^%^J^"^':4:y?'^ 2 3) No appiteation for condonatfon of the detay in flting Uie petftionunder Secttem 378(3) oftheGr.p.C;, was filed along with thep^ition. 4) In fact, nosuch application has been fited titl dafethough a period of more than 4 years has etapsed since the filing of the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C.,on 19.01 .2006 inspte of giiant ofan opportunity by Additionat Reglstrer (J) iri that behatf vide order dated 01 .(^.2006. 5) In this view of the matter, we do not nndany justification in theprayerofleamedAdditionalAclvoeateQeneralforgrantofmore time in thatbehalf. 6) The above prayer of learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, isrejected. 7) As the petitione^State has tailed in shQWirg any cause, mueh lesssyfficient causeforthe inordinatedelay of 347 da^ in fiiing the p^ition under Sectkin 378(3) OTCr.P.e., we are leftwith no other option; but to dismf^ the pefition as barred bytime. 8) The petitibn filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378(3) of Cr.PG., therefore, isdismisseciastime-barred'. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma SdA R.N.Chandrakar Judge