The Chhattisgarh High Court has firmly dismissed a petition filed by the state government seeking permission to appeal against an acquittal, citing an unexplained delay of 65 days in filing the plea. A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, underscored that government departments have a special obligation to act with diligence and are not exempt from the law of limitation.
Court Unmoved by Government's Explanation for Delay
The state government had approached the High Court challenging a 30 June 2025 order from the Sessions Judge in Bemetara. That lower court had acquitted a 24-year-old resident of Bemetara who was facing charges under Section 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 25(1-B) B of the Arms Act.
Arguing for the state, Deputy Government Advocate S S Baghel attributed the 65-day delay to the completion of various departmental formalities. He explained that the Law and Legislative Affairs Department had to send a proposal to the Advocate General's office, following which the case was marked for drafting. The state counsel contended that as a multi-functioning body, the government machinery often requires additional time for such procedural steps.
Bench Cites Supreme Court, Calls Delay Unacceptable
The bench, however, was not convinced by this justification. Referring to several Supreme Court precedents, the court firmly stated that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government. The judges observed that the state failed to provide a cogent or acceptable reason for the delay, describing the government's explanation as lacking in specificity.
"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 bench remarked. It further clarified that a sufficient cause for delay must be linked to events occurring within the original limitation period, not to subsequent procedural red tape within government departments.
Petition Rejected on Grounds of Delay and Laches
Consequently, the High Court rejected the government's petition on the grounds of delay and laches. The court ruled that the state could not establish any bona fide reason for the late filing of the appeal. This decision highlights the judiciary's stance that government inefficiency is not a valid excuse for failing to adhere to statutory timelines, reinforcing the principle that all parties must approach the court in a timely manner.
