JUDGEMENT 1. This is an appeal against acquittal. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to the appellant on February 22, 1978. The appeal was filed on April 10, 1978, 47 days after the order granting leave was passed. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal of this nature is 30 days, from the date on which leave to appeal is granted. The appeal was therefore filed 17 days beyond the limitation period. 2. The case of the appellant regarding sufficiency of cause for delay is that her advocate Shri D'Souza, was entrusted with the filing of the appeal, that Shri D'Souza, had suddenly to leave Goa for Delhi and therefore he drafted the memo of appeal and sent it to her through one Jose Paulo Souza, who stayed in her neighbourhood, with instructions to file the appeal on or before 24-3-1978. According to the appellant, Jose Paulo Souza also had to leave suddenly for Bombay and totally forgot about the memo of appeal; advocate D'Souza returned from Delhi on March 24, 1978, the last day of the period of limitation. In the affidavit of Jose Paulo Souza filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, he states that he was told by Advocate D'Souza to hand over to the appellant the memo of appeal with instructions to her to fix a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2/- and file it in court as early as possible, but in any event before 24-3-1978. 3. The application was opposed to by the respondent. His advocate Kolwalkar argues that the whole story given by the appellant is unbelievable. He states that the story of complete entrustment by the appellant to Shri D'Souza, alleged by the appellant, is not true. No wakalatnama of the appellant is filed by the petitioner in favour of Shri D'Souza. No wakalatnama is in the record of the proceedings of this appeal. When Shri D'Souza was asked whether the wakalatnama was sent by him along with the memo of appeal, he stated that it was sent, but later on he stated that the wakalatnama was not sent with the memo of appeal. I would not like to comment on this ambiguity, but it appears to me that no wakalatnama was given by the appellant to Shri D'Souza and for that reason no wakalatnama appears on the file. I would not like to comment on this ambiguity, but it appears to me that no wakalatnama was given by the appellant to Shri D'Souza and for that reason no wakalatnama appears on the file. Since the appellant had not given any wakalatnama to Shri D'Souza, the appellant was bound to be more diligent and to meet Shri D'Souza to find out whether an appeal was filed or not. It must also be noted that Shri D'Souza did riot mention in his affidavit that he had sent to the appellant along with the memo of appeal, the wakalatnama given by her to him. This lack of diligence on the part of the appellant is fatal to the appeal. 4. After Shri D'Souza returned from Delhi he did not make any inquiries to find out whether the memo of appeal had reached the hands of the appellant and whether the appellant had filed the appeal or not. This fact indicates that the appellant had not entirely left the matter to Shri D'Souza. The fact that Shri D'Souza believed that the appellant was capable of herself filing the appeal before the Court, indicated that the appellant was not a person who was totally ignorant of court affairs. This is corroborated by the fact that the appellant is a party to six different proceedings in Courts of law. 5. As to the affidavit of Shri Jose Paulo Souza. it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of the facts deposed to by Jose Paulo Souza. I entirely agree with Shri Kolwalkar that Jose Paulo Souza was a casual witness, who could be picked up for the occasion. He chanced to be on the spot at the appropriate moment. He does not state when he returned from Bombay to Goa. This fact is very important. Unless it is known that he was totally unable to discharge the alleged errand of handing over the memo of appeal to the appellant, his evidence can carry no weight. Being a casual witness, he ought to have given details of his sudden trip to Bombay. He had to produce the tickets or some other proof that he in fact had to go to Bombay all of a sudden and that he did not return in time. No reliance could be placed on his affidavit. 6. Being a casual witness, he ought to have given details of his sudden trip to Bombay. He had to produce the tickets or some other proof that he in fact had to go to Bombay all of a sudden and that he did not return in time. No reliance could be placed on his affidavit. 6. It is further argued by Shri Kolwalkar that the affidavit of Shri D'Souza does not state which information is obtained by him directly and which is obtained by him indirectly and that therefore the affidavit of Shri D'Souza should be discarded in view of the ruling in A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652 . 7. This appeal is an appeal against acquittal. An order in such appeal is in order confirming the presumed innocence of the accused and any appeal should not be lightly displaced. I agree with Shri Kolwalkar that the respondent had acquired a vested right by virtue of the order of dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the circumstances, I reject the order of the appellant for condonation of delay and hold that the appeal is barred by limitation. 9. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.