SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THERE is relatively long delay of 241 days in filing this appeal and normally, we would have afforded the State Counsel time to file an application for condonation of delay. We are dispensing with these formalities, in so far as, we accept, the grounds adduced by the learned counsel for the delay and we formally condone the delay. ( 2 ) THE principal reason for doing this is because it is the duty of this Court to do a careful examination of the appeal on merits before ordering notice to the respondent accused for the reason that in those of the cases where there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal, issuance of notice to the accused is not only academic but would subject the opposite party to incur lot of expenditure, time, etc. , which is avoidable. Undoubtedly, in those of the cases where we are satisfied that the Sate has a good case or even arguable case, does not come within any of these categories. ( 3 ) THE learned Addl. SPP vehemently submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. He recounted the circumstances and his submission is that all of them put together, particularly, a strongly incriminating circumstance, namely, recovery of personal items belonging to the deceased from accused No. 3, is highly incriminating. Normally, even though accused No. 3 is dead, this circumstance would have fastened a strong nexus, but there is one factor, which we cannot overlook. It has come on record that the illicit affair was going on between the deceased and the accused No. 1 Kariyavva, for the last 20 years and more and that the deceased used to not only regularly visit her house, but he used to stay for long period of time with her. Even after the death of her husband this situation continued and it has come on record that she had a grown up daughter, who has married and that she had asked the accused No. 1 not to continue with this scandal as it would reflect on her marital life, but, despite these requests the accused No. 1 was still regularly visiting him. In this background, if the personal items belonging to the deceased are found at that place and they are recovered at the instance of the accused No. 3 (deceased), who was a close relation, it cannot be held to be an incriminating circumstance. ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence in this case and even the evidence of PWs 7 and 8, who claimed that they saw the two accused carrying a gunny bag containing the dead body of the deceased and that they stopped them and questioned about the contents of that bag, we find this totally unacceptable and impossible to accept. The two witnesses have stated that some dacoity had taken place in the village and that they suspected that these accused persons may be involved in such an activity and out of suspicion they stopped them. If that was the position, they would most certainly have examined the contents of the gunny bag and detected the dead body. Also, we find it absolutely difficult to accept the position that the accused persons would be openly carrying the dead body and that they would do so in the presence of the other villagers. The evidence lead by the prosecution consists of hardly three circumstances all of which are too weak and inconclusive. The learned trial Judge had examined all of them and held that they do not meet with the requirement of law so far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned and that consequently, the charge will have to fail. ( 5 ) AFTER a total review of the record and after hearing the learned State counsel on merits, we find that this is not a fit case where a conviction can be sustained and the accused have rightly been acquitted. The order of acquittal is, accordingly, confirmed. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. --- *** --- .