JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. Before considering the condonation application, it is appropriate, in view of the case set up and nature of controversy involved, to consider the main matter wherein and whereby the prosecution had projected that on 22.05.2003, a telephonic information was received from Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu with the request to Police Station Samba to initiate inquest proceedings in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C with regard to death of one Geeta Devi W/o Som Raj Bhagat R/o Kangwala, Tehsil Samba due to burns. ASI Sardari Lal carried out the proceedings, took the dead body in his custody, and collected other evidence and on the basis of findings of the inquiry, a case was registered vide FIR No.76/2003 at Police Station, Samba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306 RPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that husband of the deceased has demanded a Scooter and her mother-in- law demanded Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and because of non-satisfaction of their demand, both of them set-ablaze the deceased-Geeta Devi on 22.05.2003, who on being shifted to hospital succumbed to her injuries. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was filed against Som Nath S/o Prem Lal and Garo Devi W/o Prem Lal R/o Kangwala, Tehsil Samba. On 20.07.2002, the accused were charge sheeted, who denied the charges and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution in order to prove its case, cited as many as 16 witnesses, out of which, it has examined PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, PW-2, Shamo Devi, PW-3, Parkasho Devi, PW-4, Swarn Dass, PW-6 Darshan Singh, PW-7, Kanshi Ram, PW-8 Prem Paulk, PW-9 Mangal Singh, PW-10 Sheelo Devi, PW-11, Ratno Devi, PW-13, Munshi Ram, PW-14 Ct. Onkar Chand, PW-15 ASI Sardari Lal and PW-16 Balbir Kumar. 3. Father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Prem Lal, has also been examined by the prosecution as witness No.8, who deposed that deceased had received burn injuries in an accidental fire while preparing tea and he denied that there was any other mischief by the accused persons. 4. PW-10 Sheelo Devi, PW-12 Rattno Devi and PW-12 Sarwan Kumar, who have been cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. 4. PW-10 Sheelo Devi, PW-12 Rattno Devi and PW-12 Sarwan Kumar, who have been cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Moreso, the prosecution has also failed to examine Investigating Officer and Doctor in the case and non-examination of material and important witnesses like Investigating Officer and Doctor has caused prejudice to the accused. 5. Trial Court after examining the prosecution witnesses has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Accordingly, Trial Court acquitted both the accused of the charges leveled against them. 6. Instant application for condoning the delay has been filed without any detailed reasons and the same has been drafted in a very casual and routine manner. Besides this, plausible grounds for delay are conspicuous by their absence in this application. 7. In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 , the Supreme Court made an observation as follows: "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts is to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present-day scenario. They are: a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).19846/2020 titled as Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin & Ors., decided on 04.02.2021, while dismissing it on account of delay observed as under:- "We have repeatedly being counselling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake! The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]”. 9. In the present case, the appeal is filed by the Government against the Judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge in File No: 42/2006 titled State Vs Som Nath and others. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]”. 9. In the present case, the appeal is filed by the Government against the Judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge in File No: 42/2006 titled State Vs Som Nath and others. In the application of condonation of delay, the applicant has not disclosed any reason for condoning the delay and even a single reason has not been mentioned as to when certified copy of the order was received and when it was forwarded to the concerned authority for getting approval for filing the appeal. It is only mentioned that the matter after its examination at different levels with reference to the record was finally referred to the Law Department along with the record of the case for its examination and for opinion and the Law Department after examining the judgment in the light of the record of the case has advised the applicant-appellant to file appeal against the judgment impugned vide communication dated 16. 06.2016, but, the present appeal has been filed on 20.07.2016 and that too after more than one month from the date of communication of the Law Department, which shows that the applicant-appellant has casual approach in such a manner and not mentioned any reason for filing the appeal in due course of time. Thus, this application seems to have been filed in a casual manner and requires rejection. 10. If this is an attitude of the Government then what is to be expected from a common man. The Government has huge manpower as well as efficient machinery at its disposal to supervise and pursue its matters. The carelessness on the part of the applicant in this case is embarrassingly unfathomable. 11. For the reasons stated here-in-above, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the condonation application. Accordingly, condonation application is dismissed. Resultantly, in light of dismissal of condonation of delay application, the appeal filed by the State seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 15.02.2016 shall also stand dismissed, being time barred. Dismissed