Delay not a right: HC rejects state’s delayed Pocso appeal

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to condone a 98-day delay by the State in filing an appeal against an acquittal in a POCSO case, holding that government departments cannot claim condonation as a matter of right.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on June 19 dismissed the petition filed by the State of Chhattisgarh through the SHO, Kota police station, Bilaspur. The State had sought leave to appeal against an acquittal dated August 8, 2025.The State attributed the delay to procedural formalities within departments, arguing that internal processing required time and that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide.The Court rejected the explanation. “However, the Court found the explanation vague and unsupported by specific justification, holding that such administrative excuses cannot constitute ‘sufficient cause’ under the law of limitation,” the order said.The Bench observed that the State had “miserably failed” to explain the delay of 98 days in a satisfactory manner and that “mere movement of files between departments does not automatically justify condonation.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Court reiterated that government bodies do not enjoy a separate or extended limitation period. It held that “administrative inefficiency or bureaucratic procedure is not a valid excuse.”The Bench stressed that courts cannot mechanically condone delays merely because the State is a litigant.

“Such an approach would defeat the purpose of limitation laws,” it observed.Laying down the broader principle, the Court said: “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.

”The Court also noted that permitting routine condonation would amount to granting an “undue advantage” to government agencies over ordinary litigants. The State had sought to challenge the acquittal, arguing that the trial court wrongly discarded the victim’s testimony and other evidence. However, the HC did not examine the merits. Dismissing the appeal at the threshold, it held that no sufficient cause was shown.“Concluding that the explanation offered was neither convincing nor bona fide, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and rejected the application for condonation of delay along with the petition seeking leave to appeal.”