JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. The Interlocutory Application 215/2016 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 900 days in filing the accompanying special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed in Special Case No. 12/2006, under Section 120B, 420, 477A IPC, read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) P.C. Act, by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Additional Court No. 1, Guwahati. 2. The another application filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal. Already heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the petitions. As against the said order of acquittal, the CBI preferred appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. with a delay condonation petition Crl. MC No. 261/2014 and after processing the said petition, this Court by condoning the delay of 47 days directed to register the appeal vide Crl. Appl. No. 95/2015, vide order dated 06.04.2015. However, on the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding non-compliance of Sections 378 (2) (3) (5) Cr.P.C. that the appeal has been filed without special leave, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. by its order dated 03.06.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another Interlocutory Application 840/2015, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside and modification of the aforesaid order dated 03.06.2015, passed by this Court in Crl. Appl. No. 95/2015 and upon hearing the matter, said application was dismissed on a findings that as the appeal was filed without complying statutory requirement under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. and also in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C., the review of earlier order is not maintainable, hence dismissed as on 03.11.2015. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Court has allowed the appeal to register by condoning the delay of 47 days, subsequent reliance upon the provision of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. by the respondent is not proper and the special leave may have been granted by the Court while the delay has already been condoned. Further, the very order for allowing the registration of the appeal by condoning the delay, it inherently indicates that there was a grant of special leave to appeal by the Court. Further, the very order for allowing the registration of the appeal by condoning the delay, it inherently indicates that there was a grant of special leave to appeal by the Court. Situated thus, the petitioner come forward with fresh applications for special leave to appeal so as to decide whether technical objection to the inherent power of the Court is enough to dismiss the entire appeal without hearing on merits. Further aspect that has been raised, whether such a leave to appeal could have been considered at the time of admission. 4. The petitioner submits that the Criminal Appeal ought to have been heard even in absence of any formal application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. discarding the technical point, without interference from the respondent and decide the case on merits, as the respondent/accused have been convicted in more than 47 other cases on the same para materia evidence and modus operandi. Regarding the procedure adopted by the department of CBI, it has been submitted that the legal authority of the appellants being dissatisfied to the order passed by this Court, as mentioned above, issue instructions to file the appeal afresh with compliance to Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the administrative order was passed on 05.02.2016, to this effect. On the next, it is submitted that the provision of Section 378 (2) Cr.P.C. requires the Central Govt. to direct P.P. to present appeal, hence instructions were given to the CBI from Central Govt. to prefer the appeal against acquittal. The earlier appeal which was refused was at the instance of CBI which cannot be substituted for the Central Govt., which is the only competent authority to issue such direction. That being the position, order passed in the previous attempt for appeal cannot stand as a legal bar against the present appeal which has been directed to file by the appropriate competent legal authority. The delay in preferring the present appeal because of the intervening appeal by CBI which per se does not make the delay intentional. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed such petition for delay as well as the special leave petition on the contention that the appellant authority cannot bypass the mandate of law at its own whims and pleasure. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed such petition for delay as well as the special leave petition on the contention that the appellant authority cannot bypass the mandate of law at its own whims and pleasure. The law has specifically provided that such an appeal against acquittal can be preferred before the High Court only after obtaining leave of the Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner/appellant has flouted all the procedure while adhering to prefer the appeal and while their appeal was rejected for want of leave application and also their subsequent review petition as well as prayer for modification and cancellation of order dated 03.06.2015, made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court and in such backdrop, the same Court cannot entertain the same subject, rather the appellant could have approach to the higher authority for their grievances. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties and the various orders passed by this Court referred above. 6. For better appreciation of the matter in hand, the provision of Section 378 Cr.P.C. is reproduced below Section 378 Cr.P.C. Appeal in case of acquittal- Save and otherwise provided in Sub-Section 2 and subject to the provision of Sub-Section (3) & (5), (a) .. (b) (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 or any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any central act other than this Court, the central govt. may subject to provision of Sub-Section 3 also direct the P.P. to prefer the present appeal (a) To the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence (b) To the High Court from an original for appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by Court of Sessions in revision. (3) No appeal to the High court under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-Section (2) of Section 378 of the Code provides that such an appeal can be preferred only as per direction of the Central Govt. and not otherwise. (3) No appeal to the High court under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-Section (2) of Section 378 of the Code provides that such an appeal can be preferred only as per direction of the Central Govt. and not otherwise. Admittedly, the first round of appeal against acquittal was instituted by CBI without being authorized by the Central Govt. and only in the year 2016 competent authority has directed to prefer the appeal whereas order of acquittal was of July' 2013. Lack of proper application of law can be noticed on the part of the appellant authority while preferring the appeal as per procedure. 7. On the next, Sub-Section (3) of the proviso 378 Cr.P.C. make it mandatory to entertain an appeal against acquittal subject to obtaining leave in this regard which is not a mere formality. Entertainment of appeal by the High Court against an acquittal will be justified only under special circumstances. It is worth mentioned that earlier appeal was preferred under Section 377 Cr.P.C. along with condonation petition which is also filed on wrong motion as the Section 377 Cr.P.C. provides appeal by State Govt. against the conviction and inadequate sentence which is obviously not applicable against the case of acquittal. 8. Even after dismissal of the appeal for want of special leave, instead of adhering to proper procedure or to approach higher forum against such order to challenge the same, the appellant/petitioner moved in its own way for review and or quashing the order, inappropriate manner. After exhausting certain procedure in quite long direction, the appellant/petitioner has come forward before the same Court with the same prayer for granting special leave after 900 days delay which cannot be entertain in the given background of the case. The conduct of the authority of CBI cannot at all be appreciated while dealing the matter of appeal against acquittal as has been mentioned above. They have flouted all the mandate on law about preferring the appeal and their improper approach, lethargic process has made their claim stale and unactionable and hence cannot be accepted. 9. For all the reasons and discussion above, prayer for condoning the delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the special leave petition also dismissed. 10. Both the petitions disposed of accordingly.