JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This application by the State is for condonation of delay of twenty-three days in filing Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 1979 for enhancement of "sentence imposed on accused No. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 333 of 1976. 2. Hearing Mr. S.S. Phanse, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G.A. Panna, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused No. 2, we are not inclined to condone the delay. 3. Going through the application and the averments therein, we find that the same does not disclose sufficient cause. Indeed, the various dates mentioned in the application indicate want of diligence at all relevant stages of the proceedings till the time the application and the appeal were ultimately filed in this Court. 4. As observed by the Supreme Court (per R.S. Pathak, J., as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) in (Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat)1, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 633 : "...Now it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstance subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filling of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed mush be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. In the present case there was no such cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay." Applying the above test and principle which squarely applies to the instant case, we are more than satisfied that the application here fails to make out sufficient cause for condoning delay. Since we are not satisfied on the basic question of sufficient cause, the question of exercising our discretion to condone or not to condone the delay in question would not arise. 5. Since we are not satisfied on the basic question of sufficient cause, the question of exercising our discretion to condone or not to condone the delay in question would not arise. 5. Assuming, however, that sufficient cause can be said to have been made out, we would still, in the exercise of our discretion, not condone the delay because the offence here was of May 1976 i.e. more than eleven years back and the conviction was of January 1978 i.e. about ten years back. This long lapse of time itself is a factor which cannot be lightly ignored. Then again, the accused has already abided by the impugned order of January 1978 of probation on good conduct. On this ground also justice requires that we should not interfere. In all the circumstance, this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. In passing, however we may mention a rather interesting question urged by the learned Counsel Mr. G.A. Panna. In his submission there is in this case no sentence imposed upon the accused and consequently occassion to consider enhancement of sentence does not exist or arise. After convicting the accused under section 5(1)(d) of the S.I.T. Act and section 373 of the Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, instead of sentencing her at once to any punishment, has directed her release on entering into a band for Rs. 500/- with one surety for like amount (on each count) to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and to in the meanwhile keep peace and be of good behaviour as also to pay compensation of Rs. 200/- to the victim. In addition, supervision order was also made against the accused to the effect that she should remain under the supervision of the probation officer for a period of one year and should allow him inspection of premises whenever asked for and should also inform the probation officer of any change in residential address within eight days of the change, if any. Direction was also given to the probation officer to inspect the premises of the accused at least once a month. Mr. Panna rightly contends that there was, therefore, no sentence and no question of enhancing the same. Based on this, he further submitted that the State appeal for enhancement of sentence was therefore, misconceived and not maintainable. There is considerable merit in this contention. Mr. Panna rightly contends that there was, therefore, no sentence and no question of enhancing the same. Based on this, he further submitted that the State appeal for enhancement of sentence was therefore, misconceived and not maintainable. There is considerable merit in this contention. In an appropriate case the same will have to be gone into, considered and decided. In this particular case, however, as the delay itself in filing the appeal has not been condoned the aforesaid contention does not arise for decision. The same, however, is left expressly open. 6. In the result, this application fails and the same is rejected. Rule stands discharged. Rule discharged. -----