1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO.2653 OF 2008 IN CRI. APPEAL NO.486 OF 2008. (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR.FDA..VS.. SHASHIKANT JAMNADAS SEDANI & ANR.) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri D.B.Patel, A.P.P. for Applicant. Dr. Sunderam, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 01, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 385 days in preferring appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28th November, 2006. 2. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have seriously contested this application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 4. In paragraph 2 of the application it is mentioned that copy of the judgment became available on 2nd January, 2007. It is not clear as to why proposal was forwarded to District Magistrate on 4th April, 2007 i.e. after three months. Likewise in paragraph 3 of the application it is mentioned that the Law and Judiciary Department approved the proposal for filing of appeal on 19.06.2007, it is not clear as to why the proposal was shuffled within the office till 20th June, 2008. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are rulings to the effect that as far as State Government officers are concerned they are not expected to explain day to day delay. But at least they must explain each month's delay. So long as there is no separate law prescribing separate procedure for the State or separate limitation for the State, such contentions cannot be countenanced. 3 6. The delay is not explained. The application, is, therefore, rejected. 7. Consequently, leave refused. Appeal dismissed. JUDGE RR..