Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Condonate 405-Day Delay by State; Holds Bald Plea of Official Procedure Insufficient to Override Limitation Law
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Savitri and Another
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CRM-21793-2019 in & CRA-AS-184-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to condone an inordinate delay of 405 days in filing a criminal appeal by the State of Haryana, holding that vague assertions of administrative processing and official formalities do not constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court reiterated that condonation of delay is an exception and not a rule, and that the State is equally bound to demonstrate diligence, bona fides, and cogent explanation for delay.
Summary: The State of Haryana filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 405 days in preferring an appeal against a judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The explanation offered was that the matter had passed through multiple administrative levels, including scrutiny by the District Attorney, District Magistrate, and the office of the Advocate General, before approval was granted to file the appeal.
The Court examined the averments made in the application and found them to be generic and devoid of specific particulars. No dates, documents, or material were produced to establish continuous pursuit of the matter or to demonstrate unavoidable circumstances preventing timely filing. The explanation merely reflected routine bureaucratic movement of files without showing due diligence.
Relying on settled principles governing condonation of delay, including recent Supreme Court decisions emphasising that governmental litigants cannot seek special indulgence merely on account of their identity, the Court held that bureaucratic delay by itself cannot be treated as sufficient cause. The Court observed that such casual and mechanical explanations undermine the certainty and discipline sought to be enforced by limitation statutes and unnecessarily subject accused persons to prolonged litigation.
Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay of 405 days was dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying criminal appeal filed by the State also stood dismissed.