Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) 1. This is a petition brought forth by the State seeking condonation of delay of 435 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Additional Session, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, made in S.C.No.303 of 2008 dated 23.10.2008. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and also the counter affidavit. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner State and also the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3. Admittedly, the respondents herein stood charged under various provisions of law inter alia along with the charge of murder. The case was tried by the Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddlore, and the judgment of acquittal was rendered on 23.10.2008. 4. According to the State, the certified copy of the judgment was applied for, and the same was obtained, and after obtaining the same, an opinion was sought for from the Additional Public Prosecutor, and after obtaining the opinion on 15.11.2008, a proposal was sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned, and the proposal for filing the appeal in the case was also placed before the D.G.P. on 27.7.2009, and the D.G.P. in turn sent the proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, on 10.8.2009, and then it was sent to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, and the same was received by the Public Prosecutors Office on 27.8.2009, and after perusing the records, the Public Prosecutor called for certain additional documents, and the same were also collected and filed in the month of January 2010, and the appeal has been preferred on 29.3.2010, and thus the delay of 435 days had occasioned in preferring the appeal, and under the circumstances, it is a fit case where the delay has got to be condoned. 5. Countering the above contentions, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that it is not a fit case where the delay could be condoned; that first of all, no reasons are mentioned, much less valid reasons which could be accepted for such an inordinate delay of 435 days; that a perusal of the affidavit does not speak about any reason for the delay; and that simply it is a narrative of the circumstances, but it does not speak about the reason for such an inordinate delay. 6. 6. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that in the instant case, all the witnesses except the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, have turned hostile; that under the circumstances, the appeal itself has been brought forth for appeal sake and that too after an inordinate delay without putting forth any acceptable or sufficient cause, and hence the petition has got to be dismissed. 7. The learned Senior Counsel in order to fortify his contentions, relied on two decisions of this Court reported in 1991 L.W. (CRL.) 317 (STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. SIVASAMY AND OTHERS) and in 2010 (1) MWN (CR.) 359 (STATE V. ANNAMALAI COTTON MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS). 8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the delay could be condoned. 9. Admittedly, the judgment of the trial Court was made on 23.10.2008. It has to be pointed out that the certified copy of the judgment was applied, and the same was obtained. When it was obtained is not mentioned. However, opinion was offered on 15.11.2008, and after obtaining the same, the matter was placed before the D.G.P. only on 27.7.2009, and thus there was a delay of nearly about 8 months during the interregnum period. Thereafter, it was actually placed before the Public Prosecutors Office. According to the State, in the month of October 2009, some of the papers were called for, and the same were collected and placed before the Public Prosecutors Office. However the appeal was actually preferred on 29.3.2010. The entire affidavit does not make out any reason, much less valid reason. An appeal has got to be preferred as per the provision of law within 90 days. There must be some meaning in prescribing the period of limitation for preferring an appeal. It is true that whenever an appeal has got to be preferred by the State, it is quite natural that in the administrative process, the delay would occasion. But, in a given case like this, when an inordinate delay of 435 days is noticed, a duty is cast upon the State not only to put forth reasons, but also valid and acceptable reasons. In the instant case, this Court is unable to see any reason, much less valid reason in order to condone such an inordinate delay. 10. But, in a given case like this, when an inordinate delay of 435 days is noticed, a duty is cast upon the State not only to put forth reasons, but also valid and acceptable reasons. In the instant case, this Court is unable to see any reason, much less valid reason in order to condone such an inordinate delay. 10. This Court had an occasion to consider such a situation where the delay is actually caused in preferring an appeal in a case reported in 1991 L.W. (CRL.) 317 (STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. SIVASAMY AND OTHERS). It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce that part of the judgment of the Court as follows: "On a perusal of the affidavits, it is clear that the delay for not filing the appeal within the statutory period has not at all been explained. It has been stated in both the affidavits that the reason for the delay was purely on account of administrative set up. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, and in regard to the subsequent delay after the expiry of the period of limitation, it is only stated that it was administrative delay without giving any reason except stating the various dates when the file moved from the concerned authorities. The petitioner has miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay of 155 days. Though there is an averment that there is delay of 155 days on the part of the District Magistrate and Collector, Tiruchirapalli, in filing the appeal, it has not been explained as to how the delay has occurred. As rightly pointed out in the counter, limitation is a valuable right that would accrue to a successful party in a litigation and more so to an accused in a criminal case who has been acquitted. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed." 11. In the case on hand, once the delay noticed is 435 days and is also inordinate, in the absence of any valid and sufficient reasons, it cannot be condoned. 12. In the case on hand, once the delay noticed is 435 days and is also inordinate, in the absence of any valid and sufficient reasons, it cannot be condoned. 12. Insofar as the second contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that it is a meritless appeal in view of the fact that all the witnesses except the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, have turned hostile, though admitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor, it has to be pointed out that it is not the time where the Court is called upon to consider the merits or otherwise of the appeal. Under the circumstances, as far as the delay is concerned, it is not a fit case where it could be condoned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.