Single judge bench allowed the criminal application after condoning a non-deliberate delay of 34 days due to absence of applicant's counsel.
Delay of 34 days condoned; criminal application allowed.
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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1900/2009.
in
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.765/2009.
Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
1. Counsel for the applicant absent.
2. There is delay of 34 days in causing to
file Criminal Application. On going
through the application, I see that the
delay of 34 days in preferring the
application, seeking to challenge the
Order of the revisional court in
Criminal Revision No.95/2008, recorded
by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Osmanabad, is not deliberate. The
delay is incidental, delay condoned.
Application allowed as above.
bdv/cran1900.09
Unidentified Applicant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court