Tashi Rabstan, J.— 1. Judgment dated 30.03.2012, (for short, impugned judgment), by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in case titled State of J&K v. Sahib Dayal, bearing FIR No. 336/2009, Police Station Kathua for the commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act) is called in question by the appellant-State. 2. Being aggrieved of acquittal of the respondent, appellant has preferred appeal in hand along with application seeking condonation of 96 days' delay in filing the appeal. 3. The reasons projected to seek condonation of delay are as under:- 4. That the judgment was passed on 30.03.2012. The matter was examined and forwarded to the Government for filing of acquittal appeal. 5. That since the above matter has to go through at different levels as such it had taken sometime. Subsequently, the above matter was again considered at the administrative level and sanction for filing of appeal was issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs vide Government Order No.2267-LD(ACQ) of 2012 dated 17.07.2012 6. That the counsel for the applicant/appellant thereafter drafted the above titled appeal and sent to the applicant for signatures. The applicant being the law enforcing agency is duty bound to perform every affair related to the security, law and order and other matters smoothly and took some time to deliver the signed papers back to the counsel for the applicant.." 4. It clearly reveals from paragraph No.5 of the application that despite sanction from the State Government on 17.07.2012, the Appeal was not filed for more than two and half months and the reasons that may be discernible from the application is that matter had to go through at different levels as such it had taken some time to file the appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered her submissions, perused the application of condonation of delay moved by the State and the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered her submissions, perused the application of condonation of delay moved by the State and the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 6. Delay in filing appeal after the statutory period of limitation prescribed therefore cannot be condoned as a matter of course, in that, it may deprive the other party of the right accrued to it because of non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed period. The party seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Sufficient cause may be considered only if the circumstances that disabled it in filing appeal within time were spelt out. Mere saying that the matter had to go through at different levels as such it had taken some time to file appeal, is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. The applicant has failed to explain reasons for day to day delay in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay may not, therefore, deserve allowance, as such, on its own merit, in that, we do not consider the cause projected in the application sufficient to condone delay. 7. We, however, thought it appropriate to examine the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua to find as to whether or not any interference was warranted therewith, so that injustice may not occasion merely because of lapse on the part of the appellant-State in filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 8. Perusal of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua would reveal that the acquittal of the respondent is well-merited, in that, the prosecution has failed to prove any incriminating circumstances against the respondent much-less a complete chain of circumstances that would connect respondent with the commission of offence punishable under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act. Trial Court has discussed in detail the evidence produced by the prosecution and appreciated it in the light of legal position that the prosecution is required to prove such circumstances which would prove that it was only the accused, who was responsible for commission of the offence. Most of the witnesses created grave suspicion in the mind of the trial Court regarding the proceedings due to which prosecution case becomes doubtful. Most of the witnesses created grave suspicion in the mind of the trial Court regarding the proceedings due to which prosecution case becomes doubtful. Trial court has rightly held that prosecution has failed to provide all the connecting links in the case which were imperative and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. 9. The prosecution story in the circumstances is not pennyworth even to call for conviction of the accused. After examining the entire material available, we find impugned judgment is a well reasoned and needs no interference. 10. The State having thus failed to make out any case justifying condonation of delay, Application moved by it is accordingly rejected. Consequently, Cr. Acq. Appeal No.66/2012 is dismissed as barred by limitation.