1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2009. IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2926 OF 2009 (State of Maharashtra .v. Rajendra @ Babbu Ramprasad Mishra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, APP for the applicant/State. Shri A.A. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Harshal Bobade, Advocate for the respondent No.5. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. 15TH JANUARY, 2010. By this application, the applicant/State prays for condonation of delay of about 35 days in filing appeal. According to the applicant, the delay occurred is neither deliberate nor due to negligence but because of the official process required to be followed and difficulties faced by the applicant due to vacancy in the post of Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Nagpur since 5th March, 2009. The charge was with Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Region for administrative work only. It is further contended that under such circumstances, the Principal Secretary and RLA to State Government, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai was to take decision 2 on the proposal sent to Nagpur Office. There were proposals of about 60 cases for filing appeal etc. and due to heavy workload, the concerned Clerk took time for typing. Under these circumstances, the applicant has sought condonation of the aforesaid delay. According to the non-applicants, no sufficient cause has been explained for 35 days' delay. In fact, there is delay of about 56 days and that was without proper explanation. Reliance is sought to be placed upon in the matter of Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal .v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal (reported in 1996 Cri.L.J., 29) (Bombay High Court) in order to submit that in an appeal against acquittal when delay has occurred, sufficient cause is required to be shown otherwise delay cannot be condoned. I have perused the said ruling. It appears pertaining to dismissal of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Here, it appears that the acquittal was under Sections 436, 452, 323 read with Sections 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the reasons pleaded in the application, delay appears to have occurred due to administrative reasons and difficulties faced by the applicant, particularly because of vacancy in the post of Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department at Nagpur. Hence, I am inclined to condone the delay 3 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable proportionately to the learned Counsel of each of the respondent. Criminal Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. JUDGE *rrg.