c^^ HIGHCOURTOFi ARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR1 RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J Cr.M.EiPR) N0,36/2008 ^ r ApDilcant Appeilant •-<h. Non-aDDllcants 1 ResDondents 2 3 State of Chhattisaarh, through the SHO PS Lormi, Distr'ict Bilaspur {CG) Versus Gangaram Sahu, S/o Shiv Prasad Sahu Agsd about - ©0years Bhagwat Sahu, S/o Gangaram Sahu, Aged about 45 years Rammllan Sahu, S/o Bhagwati Sahu, Aged about 21 years All R/o Village Dhaniyadoli, PS Lormi, Disfrtet Bilaspur (CG) ApDJication for arant of ieave to appeal Present : Shri JA Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. QRDER (SthAugust,201Q) The foliowing order of the Court was Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned Pane! Lawyer is heard. 2) The petition filed by the petitloner/State on 02.01.2008 under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C for grant of ieave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons is reported to be time barred by as many as 5 days. \. 3) No appllcation forcondonatlon of the delay was flled along with the petition. In fact, no such appllcatlon has been flled tili date though a period of 2 % years has elapsed slnce the filing of the petitlon under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C, on 02.01.2008. 4) In this view of the matter, we do not findany justification in the prayer of learned Panel Lawyer for grant of more tlme in that behalf. 5) The above prayer of learned Panel Lawyer, therefore, is rejected. 6) As the petitioner/State has miserabiy failed in showing any cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay in filina the petition under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., we are left with no other option, but to dismtss the petition as barred by time. 7) The petition filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378(3) of Cr.PC., therefore, is dismissed as 'time-barred'. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge