A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant-State has moved this application for condonation of the delay of 181 days in filing Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1996 for challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Valsad at Navsari on 21st april 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE opponent-accused has appeared neither in person nor through any advocate though duly served. Since the delay sought to be condoned is of 181 days, I have though it fit to appoint one Advocate Kum. Parul Patel to assist this court as amicus curiae in the matter. ( 3 ) THE delay is attributed to the belated application for a certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal by the concerned learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution agency at the relevant time. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed on 21st April 1995 and an application for its certified copy was made nearly 150 days thereafter on 18th September 1995. There appears to be some delay in taking its delivery also. It transpires from the record that its certified copy became ready for delivery on 21st September 1995 but its delivery was taken about a fortnight later on 6th October 1995. Both these periods of delay are attributable to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution agency at the relevant time. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Kum. Patel for the opponent-accused has submitted that the delay need not he condoned as the concerned learned Additional Public Prosecutor remained negligent not only in making his application for a certified copy of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal but also for taking its delivery. The condonation of delay, runs her submission, would tantamount to putting premium on his lethargy. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Bhukari for the applicant-State submits that no litigant should be allowed to suffer on account of default, inaction, negligence or omission on the part of his advocate. The condonation of delay, runs her submission, would tantamount to putting premium on his lethargy. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Bhukari for the applicant-State submits that no litigant should be allowed to suffer on account of default, inaction, negligence or omission on the part of his advocate. ( 5 ) AS rightly submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Bhukari for the applicant-State, it is a settled principle of law that no litigant should be let down on account of default, inaction, omission or even negligence on the part of his advocate in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq vs. Munshilal, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court at page 1400. What applies to a private litigant would be applicable with all the greater force if the litigant is the State Government or its instrumentality. In that view of the matter, the applicant-State can be said to have made out a sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal in question. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment, I should record the note of appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by Kum. Patel for the opponent-accused. It must be said to her credit that she got herself prepared to argue out this case on behalf of the opponent-accused at a short notice. In the result, this application is accepted. The delay of 181 days in preferring criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1996 is condoned. Rule issued on this application is accordingly made absolute. .