HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram: Hon^bLe ShjiT.P^Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Cr.M.P.No. 347 of 2007 Appellant Respondents Vs. 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Surguja (CG). Raju, s/o. Nand Lal Panika, aged about 19 years, r/o. Bhanaura, Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja (CG). Amit Gupta, s/o. Vinod Gupta, aged about 19 years, r/o. village Bhedmi, Police Station Balrampur, District Surguja (CG). (Application for grant of leave to appea! under Section 373(3) and memorandum ofAppeal underSection 378(1)0fthe Code ofCrminal Procedure, 1973) Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, Govt.Advocate for the petitioner/State. Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passedon 15-9-2011) Per T.P. Sharma, J. 1... 1. By this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner has prayed for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 11-8-2006 passed by First ^•..- ~<».'' "Y ^ "•. 6. Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 123/2006, whereby the court below ha? acquitted the respondents of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 398 of the IPC and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Heard on I.A.No.1/2007, application for condonation of delay in filing the instant petition Present petition for leave to appeal has been preferred after 288 days of its limitation (wrongly calculated by deducting 90 days limitation instead of 60 days limitation as 258 days). The petitioner has taken the ground that the delay occurred on account of working of Government Machinery and departmental formalities. On the other hand, Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submits that no explanation has been offered by the petitioner for long delay of 288 days. Even otherwise, leave to appeal is not maintainable and is without substance. We have heard Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State and Shri Pafull Bharat, learned counsel for the respondents and perused judgment impugned of the court below Record of the court below reveals that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the charges framed. Petitioner has not explained delay in filing such petition/appeal substantively and even the petitioner has not shown cause in mentioning the facts when they processed forobtaining , ; consent of the State Government. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground for condonation of delay in filing the petition/appeal inordinate delay of 288 days and is without substance. 8. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2007, application for condonation of delay in filing the petition/appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. g. As a result, Cr.M.P. No. 347 of 2007 also stands-dismissed. --&_ Sd/- Sd/- ^SAanna Judge Raju ' ——- R.N. CHANDRAkXR. Judge