Judgment :- 1. The Respondents are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 in C.C.No.17 of 1987 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and they have been acquired by the Trial Court from all the charges. Against the said acquittal, the State has preferred the above Criminal Appeal. In preferring the said Appeal, there is a delay of 443 days. An affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, is filed in support of the petition seeking condonotion of delay. Subsequently, an additional affidavit has also been filed. 2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State has submitted that the Judgment was passed by the Trial Court on 16.04.2008. An application for getting certified copy of the Judgment was made on 17.04.2008 itself, but as the copy was not furnished, again, another Application was made on 4.9.2008. Then, again on 04.04.2009 another Application was made and thereafter the certified copy of the Judgment was obtained on 17.04.2009. Thereafter, the opinion of the Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, was obtained on 15.6.2009. Then, the proposal along with the opinion of the Legal Advisor, was sent to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai and it was forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai on 13.07.2009 and they sent the proposal to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras on 06.08.2009. Thereafter, steps were taken and the Appeal was filed on 01.09.2009. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has further submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton. The delay was only in furnishing the certified copy of the Judgment. Originally, the Application was made on 17.04.2008, which was missing. Therefore, another application was made on 04.09.2008. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the delay is enormous and the delay has not been properly explained. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on verification submitted that the first Copy Application No.10818 of 2008 was filed by one Mr. Sheriff and the Copy Application was struck up and on 04.08.2008, a Copy Application with S.R.No.21787 of 2008 has been filed by S. Karunakaran, Special Public Prosecutor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the copy was made ready on 17.04.2009. But the particulars given in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition is not correct. Sheriff and the Copy Application was struck up and on 04.08.2008, a Copy Application with S.R.No.21787 of 2008 has been filed by S. Karunakaran, Special Public Prosecutor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the copy was made ready on 17.04.2009. But the particulars given in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition is not correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the Copy Application in SR.No.21787 of 2008 was made only on 04.09.2008, which itself nearly after four months from the date of Judgment. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1983; final report was filed in this case in the year 1987; the trial was completed in the year 2008; A.5 in this case had already died and most of the accused are aged persons. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that the Trial Court had erroneously acquitted all the accused though P.Ws.1 to 3 are the approvers in this case and their evidence is also corroborated by documentary evidence. The Trial Court merely acquitted the accused for the reason that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 were not corroborated by any oral evidence. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (1) MWN (Cr.) 166 SC : 2005 AIR SCW 1748 in support of his contentions for condonation of delay. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. In the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, it is stated that the copy applications were made on 17.04.2008 and 04.09.2008 and the officer, who is filed the affidavit, made due search with all diligence in the office and also thoroughly verified the CD file and found that no certified copy of the Judgment was made available. Thereafter only, another Application was made on 04.04.2009 and the certified copy of the Judgment was issued on 17.04.2009. This Court on perusal of the certified copy of the Judgment found that the Copy Application number referred in the Judgment copy is 21787 of 2008, but the date of Application made is shown as 04.09.2009. Thereafter only, another Application was made on 04.04.2009 and the certified copy of the Judgment was issued on 17.04.2009. This Court on perusal of the certified copy of the Judgment found that the Copy Application number referred in the Judgment copy is 21787 of 2008, but the date of Application made is shown as 04.09.2009. But according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police no Application was made on 04.09.2009 and Application was made only on 04.09.2008. Suspecting the same, this Court called for a report from the City Civil Court, Chennai. On verification of the book maintained by the copyist Section, it was found that the Copy Application made for the Register Serial No.21787 only was on 04.09.2008 and the Judgment copy was made ready on 17.04.2009 and it was delivered on 17.04.2009 to the Head Constable of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. The date shown in the said Certified Copy of the Judgment that the Application was made on 04.09.2009 is only a mistake and it should be as 04.09.2008. Based on this, the delay is calculated after deducting 90 days the delay is not 443 days but it is only a delay of 187 days. 8. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra in paragraph No.17 as follows: “17. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on the table for considerable time causing delay – intentional or otherwise – is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the Appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression “sufficient cause” should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-à-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorize the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file Appeal, needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the Appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an Appeal or Application since he is a person legally injured while the State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.” 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the public interest, the delay in preferring the Appeal is condoned and this Petition is allowed.