GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS MUST SHOW SPECIFIC SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO CONDONE DELAY DESPITE PROCEDURAL BUREAUCRATIC METHODOLOGIES.

The State of Chhattisgarh sought leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur

The State filed the instant petition with a delay of 71 days beyond the prescribed limitation period

The petitioner submitted that the delay occurred due to the time taken for departmental formalities, the multi-functioning nature of government machinery, and the process of obtaining certified copies and proposals between the Law Department and the Office of the Advocate General

Consequently, the State filed I.A. No. 01 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay

Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to an application for leave to appeal from an order of acquittal and whether the State established "sufficient cause" for the condonation of the 71-day delay

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (analogous to the current Act) regarding the condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause"

It relied on Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012), which held that government departments must perform duties with diligence and that "procedural red-tape" is not an acceptable explanation for delay

It further applied State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), establishing that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and that "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence or inaction is attributed to the party

The court also noted Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat (1981), stating that circumstances arising after the expiry of limitation do not constitute sufficient cause

The court reasoned that the State failed to provide a specific or justifiable cause for the delay, relying merely on a vague sequence of departmental communications

Citing Postmaster General, the court emphasized that the law binds the government equally and that modern technology renders the "impersonal machinery" excuse obsolete

The court noted that for "sufficient cause" to be established, the party must explain what prevented them from filing within the limitation period—not merely what happened after it expired

Since the State’s explanation lacked specificity regarding its inaction during the initial limitation period and relied on routine administrative movement of files, the court found the explanation neither cogent nor bona fide

The Court refused to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay, stating that condonation is an exception and not an anticipated benefit for government departments

Consequently, I.A. No. 01 of 2023 was rejected, and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches