Judgment N. P. Singh, P. S. Sahay, JJ. 1. This appeal on behalf of the State was filed on 2nd January, 1974 against a judgment of acquittal dated 26th of july, 1973 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra. Admittedly the period of limitation expired on 24th October, 1973. The appeal was filed along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This Court at the time of admission of the appeal provisionally condoned the limitation subject to any objection which may be raised on behalf of respondent no.1 at the time of final hearing of the appeal. As such when the appeal was taken up for hearing parties were heard on the question of limitation. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the accused-respondent that it it not a fit case where delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because no sufficient cause has been made out on behalf of the appellant for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that a copy of the judgment bearing endorsement "certified to be true copy, 24.9.1973" was received by the District Magistrate, Chapra. According to the learned counsel this was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Chapra in compliance with the provision of Sec.373 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred as" the Code") which was in force on that day. The Assistant Public prosecutor recorded his opinion on 29.9.1973 and on that very day the Public prosecutor forwarded the records to the District Magistrate recommending filing of the appeal before this Court. On 10.11.1973 the District Magistrate sent his proposal for filing the appeal to the Law Department which was received on 14.11.1973 and then it was forwarded to the Advocate-General for his opinion. In the limitation application itself all these facts have been stated and it has been further stated that thereafter, the opinion of the Advocate-General was forwarded to the Law Department and the file was put up before the Minister for State for law and ultimately the Advocate-General was asked to present the appeal before this Court which was filed as already stated above on 2nd January, 1974. 4. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the limitation of three months for filing the Government appeal shall run from 24-9-1973 when a copy of the judgment was forwarded by the court concerned to the district Magistrate, Chapra, in accordance with the requirement of Sec.373 of the Code. He has further submitted that if the period is calculated from that date then the limitation will expire on or about 24th December, 1973 when this court was closed for Christmas holidays and the appeal has been filed on the re-opening day, there is no question of the appeal being barred by limitation. If it is held that for filing a Government appeal before this Court the period of three months shall be computed from the date when a copy of the finding and sentence is sent by the court concerned to the District Magistrate, in accordance with Sec.373 of the Code then it has to be held that the appeal was filed in time. However, the question which has to be decided is as to whether Section 373 of the Code is attracted in the circumstances aforesaid. Sec.373 of the code is as follows ;- "in. cases tried by the court of session, the court shall forward a copy of the finding and sentence (if any) to the District Magistrate within the local-limits of whose jurisdiction the trial was held. " 5. In the new Code of Criminal Procedure the parallel provision thereof is Sec.365. This section says in clear words that a copy of the finding and sentence (if any) shall be forwarded by the court concerned to the District magistrate within local limits of whose jurisdiction the trial was held. This cannot be interpreted to mean that an appeal on behalf of the State Government has to be filed within three months since the date of forwarding of such finding and sentence. It must be borne in mind that the copy of finding and sentence is something different than copy of the judgment which has been used in different sections of the Code. In view of Sec.419 of the Code, along with petition of appeal, a copy of the judgment or order appealed against has to be enclosed. It must be borne in mind that the copy of finding and sentence is something different than copy of the judgment which has been used in different sections of the Code. In view of Sec.419 of the Code, along with petition of appeal, a copy of the judgment or order appealed against has to be enclosed. As such it is duty of the State Government to obtain a copy of the judgment if it proposes to file an appeal before this Court because no appeal can be filed on the basis of a copy of the finding which has to be forwarded in view of section 373 of the Code. There is another reason for taking this view. If it is held that the period of limitation of three months shall run from the date of the forwarding or receipt of such finding and sentence by the District Magistrate, then in normal course of things an appeal can be presented on behalf of the State even after several years, because it will depend as to when the court concerned has forwarded its finding and sentence to the District Magistrate for which threre is no time-limit prescribed under Sec.373 of the Code. In our opinion, the purpose of Sec.373 of the Code is only to send information to the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the trial has taken place as to what finding has been recording and what sentence has been passed against the accused concerned. It has no connection with filing of any appeal against such judgment or order. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to hold that the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired on or about 24th December, 1973 as suggested on behalf of the appellant. In the instant case as no application for copy of the judgment was made or any such copy was taken the period of limitation shall start running since the date of the judgment. It appears that all steps for filing of the appeal were taken after the period of limitation had expired. We are unable to appreciate as to why more than one and half months was taken by the District magistrate, Chapra to forward opinion of the Public Prosecutor to the Law department. It appears that all steps for filing of the appeal were taken after the period of limitation had expired. We are unable to appreciate as to why more than one and half months was taken by the District magistrate, Chapra to forward opinion of the Public Prosecutor to the Law department. The Public Prosecutor had forwarded opinion of the Assistant public Prosecutor on 29-9-1973 itself, whereas, the District Magistrate sent that proposal on 10-11-1973 to the Law Department. 6. In our opinion no sufficient cause has been made out on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. In such a situation we are left with no option but to hold that the appeal which was filed before this court was barred by limitation. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.