IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2007 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1271 OF 2007 STATE THROUGH P. I. ATTACHED TO CANACONA POLICE STATION ... Applicant Versus VALERIANO BARRETTO AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Mr. S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for Respondents nos. 5 and 6. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 4th February, 2008 P.C.: Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents no. 5 and 6, who were the accused nos. 5 and 6 in Sessions Case no. 2 of 2004, on the board of District and Sessions Court at Margao. 3. While placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF NAGALAND V/S LIPOK AO & ORS. reported in 2005 (3) SCC 752 and the decision of the full bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S VELINGKAR BROTHERS reported in 2007(2) Bom. C.R. 249, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the movement of the file concerning the papers relating to the impugned order has been elaborately described in the application, which clearly discloses sufficient cause for the said delay. He further submitted that the contents of the application clearly disclose that there was no deliberate attempt in causing delay and it is on account of procedure which is required to be followed before filing an appeal against acquittal order that has caused the delay. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 5 & 6, on the other hand, submitted that the Sessions Court having considered the entire material in proper perspective, has ordered acquittal of the respondents nos. 5 & 6 and the application for condonation of delay also lacks bonafide inasmuch as that when the application for leave to appeal was filed, it was never disclosed to the Court that an appropriate application for condonation of delay, was not filed along with the said application. The present application was filed nearly three months after filing of the application for leave to appeal. 5. It could not be disputed that the application for condonation of delay elaborately describes the movement of the file relating to the impugned order which is said to have caused the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. As rightly submitted by the Advocate for the petitioner/applicant, the authorities are expected to take appropriate care and caution before challenging the order of acquittal and for that purpose to obtain necessary opinion from the concerned authorities. Undisputedly, authorities have to give their opinion after perusal of the records to finalise the matter. That is what has happened in the case at hand and we find that the delay has been sufficiently explained. Besides, the Apex Court has already ruled in LIPOK AO's case that while deciding sufficient cause a pragmatic approach is to be adopted and when substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be preferred. Once the delay having been found to have been explained, and the application discloses sufficient cause, we do not find any justification to reject the application, merely because the same was not filed along with the application for leave to appeal. Hence, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH