JUDGEMENT 1. This is an appeal filed by the Senior Public Prosecutor C.B.I. Government of India, on behalf of the State against the order of acquittal dated 27-8-73 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. 2. The respondents were charged under Ss.120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 471-A of I.P.C. and Section 5(1) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Judge convicted the respondents under various Sections but acquitted them under 467 and 477-A of the I.P.C. It is against this acquittal that the present appeal is preferred. 3. A preliminary point of limitation has been raised by the respondents/accused in this appeal. The limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal is of 90 days. The last day for filing the appeal was 25-11-73. The appeal was presented on 25-3-74 i.e. 120 days beyond the period of limitation. An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made along with the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Rege, Dy. S.P., the Investigating Officer in this case. 4. According to the appellant there is sufficient cause or condoning the delay, and the reasons are :- The application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgement and order was presented by them to the Court of Special Judge on 5-9-1973. No certified copy of the judgement and order could be obtained before the expiry of the limitation period as their application for obtaining the certified copy was misplaced in the office. The intimation of the loss of the application was given to the office of C.B.I. on 15-1-74. The C.B.I. presented to this Court a new application for obtaining the certified copy as they were informed that the records and proceedings had been sent to this Court. The C.B.I. was informed by, the office of this Court that their application for certified copy was defective and asked them to correct the defects. Shri Rege came to Goa with an ordinary typed copy of the judgement and order and got that copy certified by this Court, after correcting the application on 6-3-74. On the receipt of the certified copy on the same day Shri Rege moved his office for sanction for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal and he was directed to file the appeal expeditiously. On the receipt of the certified copy on the same day Shri Rege moved his office for sanction for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal and he was directed to file the appeal expeditiously. The appeal was filed on 25-3-74. Copies of letters written by the office of the Special Judge on 15-1-74 and 1-2-74 and of the one written by this Court on 31-1-74 were placed on file. 5. The case of the respondents is that the appellants have neither shown sufficient cause for filing the appeal after the limitation period was over nor have they shown that they have acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the proceedings. Various arguments were advanced at the bar by Shri Godiwala and Shri S.B. D'Silva learned Counsel for the respondents. I shall consider them presently. 6. Ordinarily when an application for a certified copy is made the applicant is informed by the office of the Court, or upon an inquiry made by the applicant to that effect, about the date on which the certified copy would be ready for delivery. The appellants have stated that no certified copy of the judgement and order could be obtained by them before the expiry of the period of limitation as their application for obtaining a certified copy was misplaced in the office of the Special Judge. The appellants did not state that no date was given to them for collecting the certified copy or that they had inquired from the office when the copy would be ready for delivery. As I have said, the case of the appellants is that their application for certified copy was "misplaced" in the office of the Special Judge but in their affidavit in support they were careful enough to use the very words in which the information was given to them by the office of the Special Judge, namely, that the application of the certified copy was "not traceable" in the office. The difference between these two words was high-lighted by Shri Godiwala learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, I agree with him that the word 'misplaced' indicates that the application was filed in the office and was later on misplaced whereas the words 'not traceable' give no indication that the application was filed. The words 'not traceable' include in it the possibility that the application was not filed. The words 'not traceable' include in it the possibility that the application was not filed. Added to it is the fact that the Superintendent of the Special Judge, in his letter of 15-1-74, not only stated that the application was 'not traceable', but he went on to say that the said application "was purported" to have been made by the applicant. The words "not traceable" coupled with the words "purported to have been made by you", leave no doubt that the Superintendent did not admit that the said application was presented by the appellants. 7. The appellants state that the intimation of the loss of the application was given to the C.B.I. on 15-1-74. This intimation was given to the appellants when, by their letter dated 10-1-74, they made inquiries about the result of their application. The appellants have not produced any receipt of the filing of the application nor have they relied on the Roznama or other records of the office of the Special Judge in support of their contention that the application was filed by them. It was incumbent upon them to file such receipt or to rely upon some document in view of the implied denial contained in the letter of the Superintendent of the Special Court regarding the filing of the application and also to file a copy of the application for certified copy after attesting it as true. But this is not all. The appellants have not even averred that the application has been presented by the Officer of C.B.I., who filed an affidavit in support of the condonation for delay that he had himself personally presented that application to the office of the Court. The Officer of C.B.I. states that an application was presented but he does not state by whom it was presented. Later on ht states in his affidavit that the application was 'filed by him. But the word 'filing' does not mean 'presenting'. A party may file an application through another person. In such cases it is the other person who presents the application, though for legal purposes the filing is done by the party. We are not concerned here with law but with the bare fact of the physical presentation of the application to the Office of the Court. A party may file an application through another person. In such cases it is the other person who presents the application, though for legal purposes the filing is done by the party. We are not concerned here with law but with the bare fact of the physical presentation of the application to the Office of the Court. The appellants have not reacted when they received the intimation of the Superintendent of the said Court, couched in the language as stated by me above and they failed to react in spite of the fact that the intimation was received by them after the expiry of the period of limitation was over, though they ought to have known that such an implied denial by the Superintendent would create great difficulty on their way for filing an appeal. 8. Later on the appellants filed an application for certified copy, to this Court and even though that application was being filed much after the period of limitation was over, they did not take the care to file it in the proper form and manner. 9. When this Court informed the appellants to correct the defects in the application one of the representatives of the C.B.I. came down with an ordinary typed copy of the judgement for getting the copy certified as a true copy by the Court and in fact got that copy certified as true on the same day. It is evident from this fact that the appellants knew that the typed copy of the judgement in their possession was a true copy and could be certified by the Court as true. They also knew that in this manner they could obviate a lot of delay and inconvenience. 10. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants had a copy of the judgement which they knew to be true but they did not state when and from whom they obtained this copy. In view of a circular issued by this Court to the subordinate Courts, all the Courts are required to supply an ordinary copy of the judgement to the parties and particularly to the defendants and to the accused, as far as it is possible. In view of a circular issued by this Court to the subordinate Courts, all the Courts are required to supply an ordinary copy of the judgement to the parties and particularly to the defendants and to the accused, as far as it is possible. These instructions were issued by this Court so as to enable the loosing party to get legal advice as to whether an appeal against the order could be filed and so that the advice could be obtained without incurring the expenses and delays involved in obtaining a certified copy. It is well known that this practise is followed by the higher Courts in this Territory and certified copies of judgements are generally given in the higher Courts. Shri Godiwala and Shri D'Silva have stated that copies of judgements and orders were in fact supplied to them when the order was delivered. Shri Namjoshi learned Senior Public Prosecutor states that he did not receive any copy because he left soon after the judgement was delivered. It is, however, not known whether no other party interested in the prosecution, if at all any was there had also left soon after and whether, if they have not, whether they have demanded that a copy of the order should also be given to them as was given to others. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellants did have a true copy of the judgement and order in their possession. They did not state how and when they obtained that copy though, it appears to me, that in the circumstances of this case, they were bound so to do. It can, therefore, be presumed that they had a true copy of the judgement and order right from the date the judgement was delivered or soon thereafter. 11. The appellants received an intimation from this Court that their application was defective, on 31-1-74, much after the period of limitation was over, yet they corrected their application only on 6-3-74. 12. The Superintendent C.B.I. obtained a certified copy on 6-3-74 and contacted his office for instructions on the same day for obtaining sanction for filing the appeal. He was directed to file the appeal expeditiously. The appeal was filed on 25-3-74. 13. 12. The Superintendent C.B.I. obtained a certified copy on 6-3-74 and contacted his office for instructions on the same day for obtaining sanction for filing the appeal. He was directed to file the appeal expeditiously. The appeal was filed on 25-3-74. 13. Rule 21 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Presentation of Appeals and Applications) Rules, 1969, empowers the Registrar of this Court to dispense wit the filing of the certified copies of judgements, orders, etc., that are required to be filed, when such copies or originals thereof, are already on record of this Court. In the present case the appellants were aware that an appeal had been presented by the respondents in this Court against their conviction on 5-10-73 and that it was accompanied by a certified copy. Hence the appellants could have availed of the provision of Rule 21 of the above said rules. 14. This was an appeal against an acquittal and the appellants should have taken the utmost care to see that if they were to prefer an appeal, they should file it within the period of limitation. The Punjab High Court has observed in 'State v. Dittu R.P. Dass', AIR 1955 Punj 164 that if a convict's appeal is out of time it is the practice of the High Court to condone the delay as no right could be said to vest in the State to have the conviction of an innocent person upheld, but if the State itself is negligent in the presentation of an appeal against acquittal, a clear right comes to vest in the accused person and he is entitled to claim that, save in exceptional circumstances delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. In that case it was held that the explanation that papers concerning the case were mislaid in the office was insufficient, within the Section, to condone the delay in filing the appeal against acquittal. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Punjab High Court. 15. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the office of the Special Judge should send the certified copy to the C.B.I. by post. To my mind there is no such duty cast upon the office. The appellants should take the elementary care of asking the office to give them a definite date on which the copy would be ready for delivery. 16. To my mind there is no such duty cast upon the office. The appellants should take the elementary care of asking the office to give them a definite date on which the copy would be ready for delivery. 16. The appellants were late by 120 days in filing this appeal and they are bound to show that there was on each of these 120 days, sufficient cause not to file the appeal. Far from being diligent the appellants are guilty of laches. The scanty justifications given in the application are utterly insufficient. A delay of 120 days in filing an appeal is inordinate by any standards and I have to hold that no sufficient cause was shown by the appellants. ORDER Appeal is dismissed as being barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.