Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 871 : 2025:CGHC:55508-DB
The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the State’s application for leave to appeal an acquittal, finding the 588-day delay in filing unexplained and inordinate. A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition after hearing the State’s explanation and the legal authorities it relied on.
The petition arose from an acquittal order dated 19 December 2023 in a Special POCSO trial at Ambikapur. The Law and Legislative Affairs Department of the State had forwarded a proposal seeking appellate action and the Advocate General’s office subsequently drafted and filed the petition. The Court, however, found that the sequence of internal departmental steps and bureaucratic processes relied on by the State did not supply a cogent, satisfactory reason for allowing the claim of delay.
In assessing the State’s explanation the Bench closely considered Supreme Court authority on condonation of delay, including Postmaster General v. Living Media (2012) and more recent pronouncements such as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024). The High Court emphasized that government departments are under the same obligation as other litigants to act with diligence and that the mere fact of institutional processes cannot substitute for a “sufficient cause” to excuse long delays. The court observed that condonation is an exception and must be justified by persuasive and timely reasons.
The Court reviewed the material placed before it and concluded that the State had not explained why the appeal could not have been filed within the prescribed period. The bench noted the absence of specific, time-linked events occurring during the period of limitation which would have prevented timely filing. Given that failure, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse condonation and dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and laches.
Beyond the immediate dismissal, the judgment reiterates a broader warning to government departments about internal accountability. While recognizing that departmental machinery can be complex, the Court urged agencies to streamline procedures, fix responsibility where delays occur, and impose penalties where lapses cause material loss to the public purse. The bench made clear that institutional inertia alone will not justify overriding statutory limitation periods.
The order is dated 14 November 2025 and is signed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. The decision reaffirms settled principles on limitation and offers a timely reminder that legal time bars are not technicalities to be set aside lightly, even when the State is the litigant.
Case Details : CRMP No. 3439 of 2025, State of Chhattisgarh vs Dinesh Yadav
Counsels : For State/Applicant : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government
Advocate.
