The applicant filed a criminal application seeking restoration of a revision application previously dismissed. The High Court observed a delay of 390 days without any explanation provided by the applicant. The application was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 43 of 2008
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO. 431 of 2006
Subhash Ramchandra Yadav .. Applicant
versus
Smt.Subha Gangadharan Nair & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.S.B. Singh for the applicant.
Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State.
CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J
DATED : 18th February 2008
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant prays
that the order dismissing revision application no.431
of 2006 be set aside and matter be restored to file.
The order which is required to be set aside was
passed on 24th November 2006. The present
application has been made on 18th January 2008 and
application is thus barred by limitation by a period
of 390 days. Not a word has been said in the
application explaining the delay, except what is
stated in para no.12A which reads thus:
"That I would satisfy the Hon’ble Court
in respect of the handwritten portion
(i.e. prayer of condonation of delay).
Even at the hearing, learned counsel for the
applicant is unable to explain why the delay for a
period of 390 days was caused. In the circumstances,
application is dismissed as barred by limitation.
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision application filed after 390 days delay, without explanation, ought to be dismissed for being barred by limitation?
Subhash Ramchandra Yadav
Smt. Subha Gangadharan Nair
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court