^° a^ zJl^-/^ A HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCU CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ, HON'BLE SHRISUNILKUIVIARSTNHA,J. Applicant Appellant Non-aDplicant Respondent Cr. M. P.(PR».No.571 of 2010. State of Chhattisgarh, Through.'the DistrictMagistrate, Distriet fegnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Rupendra Kumar, S/o Ramkisan Sakhare, Aged about - 27 years, R/o RajivNagar, Bhilai Ward No.13, P.S. Supela, Distt.Durg (C.G.). ADDlicatfon for arant of leave to apDeal U/S 378(3) and memorandum of appeal u/s 378 (11 bf Code of Crimmat ProceclurelSTS. Present: Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioneF. ORDER •th (16inApril,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is tisted today for orders on the petitioner's default in not filing an appropriate appliGation forcondonation of the delay in fiting the petition under Section 378 (3) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. 2) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. on 28.01.2010 for grant of leave to appeal •against the acquittal of respondeny acctBed Rupendra Kumar vide impugnedjydgmentdated 28.02.2009, passed in Special Case No.08/2007, is reported to be hopelessty time barred by as many as 111 days. 3) No apptication for condonation of fhe delay in filing the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed atong with the petition. In fact, no such application has been flled till date though a period of more than twomonths has elapsed since filing ofthe petition and inspite of grant of an opportunity in that behalf vide order dated 11 .03.2010. 4) In this view of thematter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned Deputy Government Advocate for grant of moretime in that behalf. 5) The prayer of leamed Deputy Government Advocate, therefore, is rejected. 6) As the petitioner/ State has miserably failed in showing any cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay in flling the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., we are leftwith no other option, but to dismiss the petition as barred by time. 7) The petition filed by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent/accused Rupendra Kumar, therefore, is dismissed as 'time-barred'. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu