Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to condone an extraordinary delay of 597 days by the State in filing an appeal, and emphatically holding that procedural lapses and internal bureaucratic movement do not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law, emphasising that limitation cannot be reduced to a matter of convenience.
The case arose from an application filed by the State of Punjab under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 597-day delay in filing an appeal for enhancement of sentence against a judgment of the Special Court. The State explained that after obtaining the certified copy of the trial court judgment, the file moved through multiple administrative levels, including opinions from prosecuting authorities and sanctions from the competent department. It was asserted that the file remained stalled for a prolonged period due to the failure of a police official to forward it to the investigating officer, following which departmental proceedings were initiated. The appeal was ultimately filed after completion of internal formalities, prompting the High Court to examine whether such administrative explanations could justify a delay of this magnitude.
The Counsel for the State argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but the result of procedural movement through statutory and administrative channels. It was submitted that the certified copy had been obtained promptly, sanctions were duly sought, and the bottleneck occurred due to negligence of an official, an aspect beyond the control of the prosecution machinery. The State contended that refusal to condone the delay would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution, particularly as the appeal sought enhancement of sentence, and urged the Court to adopt a liberal approach in line with precedents granting leeway to governmental litigants.
The Respondent, on the other hand, opposed the plea, contending that the explanation offered was vague, unsupported by cogent material, and reflective of sheer administrative lethargy. It was argued that the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private parties, and that prolonged inaction masked as procedural delay cannot meet the threshold of “sufficient cause,” especially when the delay runs into several months.
Justice Sumeet Goel reiterated that while a liberal approach may be adopted in appropriate cases, such latitude cannot extend to condoning unexplained and inordinate delays. Relying on recent Apex Court pronouncements, the Court stressed that the merits of the underlying appeal are irrelevant at the stage of delay condonation. In sharp terms, the Court observed that “no cause, much less sufficient cause as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone such a significant delay,” adding that attributing delay to procedural or unforeseen circumstances without concrete proof falls far short of the statutory threshold. The Court further noted that the explanation appeared to be an excuse rather than a bona fide justification, and warned against allowing the State to casually invoke bureaucratic functioning as a shield against limitation.
At last, while dismissing the application, the Court declined to condone the 597-day delay and, as a consequence, dismissed the accompanying appeal as well, holding that condonation of delay remains an exception and not the rule, and that governmental litigants are equally bound to demonstrate bona fide diligence and a cogent, satisfactory explanation before seeking indulgence of the Court.
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Case No.: CRM-23522-2025 in CRA-AS-99-2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Advocate for the Petitioner: AAG Adhiraj Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: None appeared
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
