Condonation of delay requires full explanation and due diligence; unexplained government delay cannot save a time-barred criminal appeal.

A criminal appeal filed beyond the limitation period was not saved by condonation because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Misplacement of the file in the Government office, followed by time taken to trace it and obtain sanction, did not justify the delay; the Court also noted an unexplained further delay after the file was recovered. The State is not entitled to a different standard, and an applicant must explain the entire period of delay with due diligence. The delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the criminal appeal and, if not, whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The appeal against acquittal was filed beyond the period prescribed by Article 157 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The explanation advanced for the delay was misplacement of the file in the Government office and the time taken thereafter for tracing it and obtaining sanction. The Court held that the law does not justify a different approach merely because the appellant is the State. Even after the file was traced, there was an unexplained further delay before sanction was granted and the appeal was filed. In an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must explain the delay and show due diligence.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

---