JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Respondent, Piare Lal was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court (1), Shimla for commission of the offence under sections 279 and 304-A, I. P C. The accusation was that respondent was driving vehicle namely, bus bearing registration No. HPA—6479 belonging to H. P Corporation (Parwanoo Region) in a rash/negligent manner on a public road so as to endanger human life and safety and while driving so near the Petrol Pump at Sanjauli, hit the said vehicle with Shri Bali Ram who received fatal injuries on his person and he consequently died in the hospital. On appraisal of evidence the learned Judge gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent accused and recorded the impugned order of acquittal vide his judgment dated August 21, 1990 The State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the said findings of the learned Judge under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The grounds of appeal was accompanied with an application seeking leave to appeal which is registered as Cr M. P. (M) No, 498 of 1991. Appeal has not been registered for it is pending admission. As per the report of the Registry, aforesaid appeal was barred by limitation by 8 days after deducting the period spent for procuring the copy etc. Various other objections were also raised by the Registry and as such, appeal was returned to the learned Advocate General for removing the objections and to re-file the same within seven days, However the report shows that the said appeal alongwith Cr M P, (M) was re-filed after removing the objections on 27th of June, 1991. Alongwith it an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed on the date of re filing the appeal that is 27th of June, 1991, for the first time. Earlier the appeal was not accompanied by such an application. 3. A preliminary objection hag been raised by the respondent that the appeal is time barred According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the appeal was not accompanied with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which was ultimately filed on 27th of June, 1991. Earlier the appeal was not accompanied by such an application. 3. A preliminary objection hag been raised by the respondent that the appeal is time barred According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the appeal was not accompanied with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which was ultimately filed on 27th of June, 1991. Further, it is pointed out that even the objections so raised by the Registry were not complied within time limit provided by them nor any explanation has been given as to why delay was caused for removing the objections and refiling the same. 4. Another argument raised is that copy was applied for on 23rd of August. 1990 It was ready for delivery on 31st August, 1990 and delivery was taken on 3rd of September, 1990 and appeal was filed on 6th of December, 1990 No day-to-day explanation has been given as to why the filing of appeal was delayed by the department. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly after deducting the entire period for obtaining certified copy of the judgment, date of filing of appeal is 6-12-1990, it is barred by 8 days only and explanation has been given in the affidavit dated 13th of May, 1991 annexing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which was filed on 27th of June, 1991. The said fact disclosed in this affidavit coupled with the application, tantamounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Reliance has been placed on the observations of the Supreme Court In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353. 7. In the application seeking condonation of delay In filing the application, it has been asserted that the District Magistrate, Shimla sent the proposal for filing the appeal in the instant case on 8-11-90 though the limitation period intimated was upto 27-11-90 The case was received in the Home Department on 12-11-1990 and was diarised on 14-11-1990. It was sent to the Law Department on the same day but it was received back on 29-11-1990 Further, that case was submitted for approval of the Government on 29-11-1990 and it was received back on 30-11-1990 and it was sent to the Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh on 3-12-1990 for filing the appeal. It was sent to the Law Department on the same day but it was received back on 29-11-1990 Further, that case was submitted for approval of the Government on 29-11-1990 and it was received back on 30-11-1990 and it was sent to the Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh on 3-12-1990 for filing the appeal. Under the circumstances, it is averred that delay is not intentional but has taken place due to various crossing channels. Another ground made is that aggrieved person should not suffer for the faults of the officials when those aggrieved persons through instrumentalities referred to above have no control over their working. 8. It is true that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated, and when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties The basic law that "Every days delay must be explained" must be applied in common rational pragmatic manner. It is also true that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and there is no presumption th8t the delay is occasioned deliberately as per the observation made in the case of Mst Katiji and others, (supra) The doctrine of equality before law is to be applied to the State as also the private litigant Circumstances have been narrated in the application indicating that on account of impersonal machinery where there is no one in charge of the matter delay has been caused in filing the appeal and in that view of the matter the courts are required to approach that expression sufficient cause by giving liberal interpretation thereto but here the circumstances are somewhat different than one involved in the case of Supreme Court which require determination of the application for condonation of delay. 9. 9. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, as observed above, firstly, the grounds of appeal did not accompany application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, secondly, the objections raised by the Registry were not removed within 7 days as directed and more so 40 days in aggregate which could have been provided to them under para 5 of Chapter I-A of Volume V of Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court which para is also made applicable in case of criminal appeals. Para 5 is as under I— "5. (1) The Deputy Registrar may return for amendment and refiling within a time not exceeding 10 days at a time, and 40 days in the aggregate, to be fixed by him any memorandum of appeal for the reason specified in Order XLI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. 5. (2) If the memorandum of appeal is not amended within the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar under sub-rule (i) it shall be listed for orders before the Court." 10. As objections had not been removed even within the maximum time limit provided therein, the Registry has listed the same before this Court for passing appropriate orders in view of it. 11. Admittedly the appeal was returned on 21-12-1990, all objections removed on 19-64990 and appeal was refiled alongwith this application on 27th June, 1991. No explanation has been given as to why the appeal could not be refiled within time or atleast within 40 days as required under the rules. Another factor which is apparent from the affidavit annexed with this application is that it was attested on 13th of May, 1991. Also objections were removed on 19th of June, 1991 but the appeal was refiled on 27th June, 1991. What happened in between and for what reasons the appeal could not be filed earlier, is not clear from the record The facts of the case of Mst Katiji and others, (supra) are distinguishable. Therein the appeal was under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Also, the grounds of appeal were accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay and proper reasons had been given. It is well recognised principle that unless appeal is properly filed, it cannot be said to legal, valid and complete appeal. Therein the appeal was under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Also, the grounds of appeal were accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay and proper reasons had been given. It is well recognised principle that unless appeal is properly filed, it cannot be said to legal, valid and complete appeal. Here there remained various objections to be removed and it was, thus, an incomplete appeal in the initial stage. Thus, herein the reasons have not been given for the delay in refiling the appeal after six months and 21 days. Thus, from whatsoever angle this application is viewed, it cannot be treated as making out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As such, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.