ORDER : Mr. R. S. Chouhan, G. A. For the petitioner/State. Respondent with Mr. Sunil Makode, Advocate. Heard on merits. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-10-2006 passed by CJM, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 3570/91 whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 18(a)(i) read with section 27-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the present petition has been filed. 2. Since the appeal is not in time and is barred by 86 days, therefore application for condonation of delay is filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant argued at length and submits that delay occurred on account of following the procedure for obtaining the permission from the State for filing the appeal. It is submitted that sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay, hence delay be condoned and appeal be heard on merits. 4. Mr. Sunil Makode, learned counsel for respondent submits that since the prosecution was filed by the Drug Inspector, therefore no permission was necessary for filing the appeal. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of State of M.P. vs. M/s Omen Drugs and others, 2002 Drugs Cases 560 wherein it was held that under the Act of 1940 no such sanction is required for filing complaint for the offences under Chapter IV of the Act. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of M/s Wheezal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2002 Drugs Cases 595 wherein this court has observed that the contention that the Drug Inspector took much time in seeking permission of the Drug Controller, therefore delay should be condoned is not acceptable as the Act does not provide for such sanction. 5. From perusal of record it is evident that impugned order is dated 16-10-2006. The State applied for copy of the judgment which was delivered to the appellant on 4-12-2006 while the appeal has been filed on 18-6-2007. From perusal of application for condonation of delay, it is evident that after obtaining the certified copy on 4-12-2006, proposal for filing the appeal was sent on 22-5-2007. There is no explanation in the application why the proposal could not be sent immediately after receipt of the certified copy on 4-12-2006. Thus there is no explanation for the delay. Apart from this the application is not signed by any of the authority of the State Govt. There is no explanation in the application why the proposal could not be sent immediately after receipt of the certified copy on 4-12-2006. Thus there is no explanation for the delay. Apart from this the application is not signed by any of the authority of the State Govt. who has applied for condonation of delay. On the contrary application is signed by Dy. Govt. Advocate while the affidavit has been filed by one Shashindra Kumar Rajak in support of the application in which also it is not stated what is the designation of the deponent. This all shows that appellant-State was careless in filing the appeal in time. 6. Since no case is made out for condoning the delay, hence the application and consequently the appeal stands dismissed.