State Of Chhattisgarh vs Gautam Bhardwaj
2026 Latest Caselaw 1506 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Gautam Bhardwaj on 9 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                          1




                                                                    2026:CGHC:16336-DB
                                                                                       NAFR
          Digitally
          signed by


                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
          BABLU
BABLU     RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA  BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
          2026.04.10
          10:10:29
          +0530




                                               CRMP No. 2474 of 2023

                       State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Outpost-Dashrangpur, P.S.
                       Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
                                                                            ... Petitioner(s)
                                                       versus
                       Gautam Bhardwaj S/o Ram Kewal Aged About 25 Years R/o Mahul,
                       Distt. Ajamgarh (U.P.) Presently R/o Gyanpur, Police Outpost
                       Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, District : Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
                                                                            ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate for

the appellant/State on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application for

condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the

State/petitioner submits that the judgment of acquittal dated 4.3.2023

has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham,

and the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of

Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur vide its memo dated 24.08.2023

sent a proposal to the office of the Advocate General to file a acquittal

against the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2023. Thereafter, the case

was placed before the Advocate General on 8.9.2023 and then the case

was marked for drafting and as per the above proposal, the office has

initiated proceeding and certified copy of the impugned judgment and

other relevant exhibited documents have been received from the

concerned Department and thereafter, the instant prepared was

prepared and filed before this Court.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary

documents and information with respect to the case, however, some

delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities

and working of the Government machinery because the State

Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of

departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in

some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the

prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The

instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 105 days from

the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of

Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress

his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the

delay of 255 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

4. The question for determination before this Court is whether the

provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e.

the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for leave to appeal

from an order of acquittal.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General

and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC

563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held as under:-

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)

concerned were well aware or conversant

with the issues involved including the

prescribed period of limitation for taking up

the matter by way of filing a special leave

petition in this Court. They cannot claim that

they have a separate period of limitation

when the Department was possessed with

competent persons familiar with court

proceedings. In the absence of plausible

and acceptable explanation, we are

posing a question why the delay is to be

condoned mechanically merely because

the Government or a wing of the

Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that

in a matter of condonation of delay when

there was no gross negligence or deliberate

inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal

concession has to be adopted to advance

substantial justice, we are of the view that in

the facts and circumstances, the

Department cannot take advantage of

various earlier decisions. The claim on

account of impersonal machinery and

inherited bureaucratic methodology of

making several notes cannot be accepted

in view of the modern technologies being

used and available. The law of limitation

undoubtedly binds everybody including

the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all

the government bodies, their agencies and

instrumentalities that unless they have

reasonable and acceptable explanation for

the delay and there was bonafide effort,

there is no need to accept the usual

explanation that the file was kept pending for

several months/years due to considerable

degree of procedural red-tape in the process.

The government departments are under a

special obligation to ensure that they perform

their duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and

should not be used as an anticipated benefit

for government departments. The law

shelters everyone under the same light and

should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no

proper explanation offered by the

Department for the delay except mentioning

of various dates, according to us, the

Department has miserably failed to give any

acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to

condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the

appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, while considering

the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

"5. The legal position is that where a case

has been presented in the Court beyond

limitation, the petitioner has to explain the

Court as to what was the "sufficient cause"

which means an adequate and enough

reason which prevented him to approach the

Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v.

Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it

was held by this Court that even though

limitation may harshly affect the rights of a

party, it has to be applied with all its rigour

when prescribed by statute. A reference was

also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay

Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92

wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14

SCC 81] while rejecting an application for

condonation of delay for lack of sufficient

cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as

follows:

"15. The law on the issue can be

summarised to the effect that where a case

has been presented in the court beyond

limitation, the applicant has to explain the

court as to what was the "sufficient cause"

which means an adequate and enough

reason which prevented him to approach

the court within limitation. In case a party is

found to be negligent, or for want of bona

fide on his part in the facts and

circumstances of the case, or found to

have not acted diligently or remained

inactive, there cannot be a justified ground

to condone the delay. No court could be

justified in condoning such an inordinate

delay by imposing any condition

whatsoever. The application is to be

decided only within the parameters laid

down by this Court in regard to the

condonation of delay. In case there was no

sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to

approach the court on time condoning the

delay without any justification, putting any

condition whatsoever, amounts to passing

an order in violation of the statutory

provisions and it tantamounts to showing

utter disregard to the legislature."

14. Therefore, we are of the considered

opinion that the High Court did not commit

any mistake in dismissing the delay

condonation application of the present

appellant."

Thus, it is crystal clear that the discretion to

condone the delay has to be exercised

judiciously based on facts and

circumstances of each case and that, the

expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be

liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction

or lack of bona fides is attributed to the

party.

5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji

Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heir, 2024

INSC 262, wherein, one of us

(J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member, after

referring to various decisions on the issue,

it was in unequivocal terms observed by

this Court that delay should not be excused

as a matter of generosity and rendering

substantial justice is not to cause prejudice

to the opposite party. The relevant passage

of the same is profitably extracted below:

"24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we

made it very clear that we are not going to

look into the merits of the matter as long as

we are not convinced that sufficient cause

has been made out for condonation of such

a long and inordinate delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a

private party or a State or Union of India

when it comes to condoning the gross

delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant

chooses to approach the court long after

the lapse of the time prescribed under the

relevant provisions of the law, then he

cannot turn around and say that no

prejudice would be caused to either side by

the delay being condoned. This litigation

between the parties started sometime in

1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years

have elapsed. However, till date the

respondent has not been able to reap the

fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery

of justice if we condone the delay of 12

years and 158 days and once again ask

the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of

the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant

matter which the court must take into

consideration while considering whether

the delay should be condoned or not. From

the tenor of the approach of the appellants,

it appears that they want to fix their own

period of limitation for instituting the

proceedings for which law has prescribed a

period of limitation. Once it is held that a

party has lost his right to have the matter

considered on merits because of his own

inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed

to be non-deliberate delay and in such

circumstances of the case, he cannot be

heard to plead that the substantial justice

deserves to be preferred as against the

technical considerations. While considering

the plea for condonation of delay, the court

must not start with the merits of the main

matter. The court owes a duty to first

ascertain the bona fides of the explanation

offered by the party seeking condonation. It

is only if the sufficient cause assigned by

the litigant and the opposition of the other

side is equally balanced that the court may

bring into aid the merits of the matter for

the purpose of condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the question of

limitation is not merely a technical

consideration. The rules of limitation are

based on the principles of sound public

policy and principles of equity. We should

not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging

over the head of the respondent for

indefinite period of time to be determined at

the whims and fancies of the appellants.

xxx xxx xxx

34. In view of the aforesaid, we have

reached to the conclusion that the High

Court committed no error much less any

error of law in passing the impugned order.

Even otherwise, the High Court was

exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court,

it has been said that delay should not be

excused as a matter of generosity.

Rendering substantial justice is not to

cause prejudice to the opposite party. The

appellants have failed to prove that they

were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the

matter and this vital test for condoning the

delay is not satisfied in this case.

36. For all the foregoing reasons, this

appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs."

Applying the above legal proposition to the

facts of the present case, we are of the

opinion that the High Court correctly refused

to condone the delay and dismissed the

appeal by observing that such inordinate

delay was not explained satisfactorily, no

sufficient cause was shown for the same, and

no plausible reason was put forth by the

State. Therefore, we are inclined to reject this

petition at the threshold.

6. At the same time, we cannot simply

brush aside the delay occurred in

preferring the second appeal, due to

callous and lackadaisical attitude on the

part of the officials functioning in the

State machinery. Though the Government

adopts systematic approach in handling

the legal issues and preferring the

petitions/applications/appeals well within

the time, due to the fault on the part of the

officials in merely communicating the

information on time, huge revenue loss

will be caused to the Government

exchequer. The present case is one such

case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788

days occasioned in preferring the second

appeal due to the lapses on the part of the

officials functioning under the State,

though valuable Government lands were

involved. Therefore, we direct the State to

streamline the machinery touching the

legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing

of cases before the Tribunal / Courts, etc.,

fix the responsibility on the officer(s)

concerned, and penalize the officer(s),

who is/are responsible for delay,

deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value

of the loss caused to the Government.

Such direction will have to be followed by

all the States scrupulously.

7. There is one another aspect of the matter

which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a

period of time, we have noticed that

whenever there is a plea for condonation of

delay be it at the instance of a private litigant

or State the delay is sought to be explained

right from the time, the limitation starts and if

there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4

years till the end of the same. For example if

the period of limitation is 90 days then the

party seeking condonation has to explain why

it was unable to institute the proceedings

within that period of limitation. What events

occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no

consequence. The court is required to

consider what came in the way of the party

that it was unable to file it between the 1st

day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is

entitled to wait until the last day of limitation

for filing an appeal. But when it allows the

limitation to expire and pleads sufficient

cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the

sufficient cause must establish that because

of some event or circumstance arising before

the limitation expired it was not possible to file

the appeal within time. No event or

circumstance arising after the expiry of

limitation can constitute such sufficient cause.

There may be events or circumstances

subsequent to the expiry of limitation which

may further delay the filing of the appeal. But

that the limitation has been allowed to expire

without the appeal being filed must be traced

to a cause arising within the period of

limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and

Another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC

733)."

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present

case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar

Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are

under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence

and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule,

and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by

Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all

litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a

select few.

8. Upon considering the matter in its entirety, we find that the State

has failed to provide any proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay

in filing the present petition. The only reason cited is that the Law &

Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh,

Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, had forwarded a proposal to the Office of the

Advocate General for initiating an appeal against the impugned acquittal

order dated 4.3.2023. Thereafter, the case was processed, and the

present petition was ultimately filed. However, this sequence of events,

lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or

acceptable explanation. Thus, the State has miserably failed to

demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an

inordinate delay of 105 days.

9. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary

power under the law to condone such extraordinary delay. The learned

counsel for the State has not been able to establish any convincing or

bona fide reason for the delay. Therefore, there is no justification for

condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the petition against the

judgment of acquittal.

10. In view of the above, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking

leave to appeal is hereby rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

                          Sd/-                                   Sd/-
                (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                    (Ramesh Sinha)
                        Judge                                Chief Justice



Bablu