Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the Punjab Government’s application seeking condonation of a 597-day delay in filing an appeal, and consequently the delayed appeal also stood dismissed, with pending applications disposed of. The State had sought to challenge a Trial Court judgment in a criminal matter and intended to pursue an appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground of alleged inadequacy. Declining relief, the Court found the delay to be inordinate and unexplained, with no material indicating bona fide efforts to act within limitation. Justice Goel noted the absence of a concrete explanation or supporting documents and observed that “no cause, much less sufficient cause” was shown to justify condonation.

The case arose from an application filed by the State seeking condonation of a delay of 597 days in filing an appeal challenging a judgment of the Special Court, Ferozepur dated 03.05.2023. The appeal proposed by the State was for enhancement of sentence on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded to the accused.

Also Read: AP Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty Only If Followed By Delivery Of Possession: Supreme Court

According to the State, a certified copy of the judgment was applied for on the date of pronouncement and was delivered on 10.05.2023. The matter was thereafter forwarded to the District Attorney, who opined that an appeal should be filed. The opinion was concurred with by the Assistant District Attorney and subsequently forwarded to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation. The proposal moved through the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, followed by opinions from the Assistant Advocate General and Additional Advocate General recommending the filing of an appeal. Sanction for filing the appeal was granted on 10.07.2023.

The State asserted that after sanction, affidavits were sought from the police authorities but the file remained pending with a police official from July 2023 to January 2025, leading to initiation of departmental proceedings. The application for condonation was filed thereafter, asserting that the delay was procedural and unintentional.

The Court examined the explanation tendered for the delay and recorded that “no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-State for condonation of the delay of 597 days in filing the accompanying appeal.”

Referring to settled principles governing condonation of delay, the Court observed that “adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer for condonation of delay ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor.” It further noted that “an applicant seeking condonation of delay has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea.”

On the issue of governmental delay, the Court recorded that “governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause for delay,” and that delay “cannot be condoned merely on the ground of the identity of the applicant.”

The Court further observed that “merely attributing it to procedural or unforeseen circumstances, without supporting details or evidence, falls short of the legal threshold for condonation.” It was recorded that "The applicant-State has failed to provide any concrete explanation or documentary proof to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause, much less sufficient cause as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone such a significant delay. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable."

Also Read: Homemaker’s Domestic Services Would Attract Substantial Pay If Outsourced: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation To ₹1.18 Crore With 9% Interest

The Court directed that “the application seeking condonation of delay of 597 days in filing the accompanying appeal is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the main appeal stands dismissed as well accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Applicant/Appellant (State): Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:006451
Case Number: CRM-23522-2025 in/and CRA-AS-99-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel