Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2009APPP/89/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the applicant's application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing a criminal appeal against acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, attributing the delay to the passage of a Government resolution.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay is allowed; Criminal Application No. 636 of 2009 is listed for appearance on 12th June, 2009.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 89 OF 2009
 IN
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.636 OF 2009

¶3

 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant.

¶4

vs.

¶5

 Arvindkumar Dharmchand Jain & Anr.Respondents.
 Mr A.S. Shinde, A.P.P.for the State.

¶6

 None for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: A.R. JOSHI,J.

¶8

DATED : 24TH APRIL,2009.
P.C.:-
 -----

¶9

 1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State on
 the application for delay condonation.

¶10

 2. There is delay of 28 days in filing the
 application for leave to file appeal against
 the acquittal of respondent nos.1 and 2 in the
 matter of offences punishable under Sections 7
 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
 1988.

¶11

 3. It appears that initially a case was
 lodged by one police officer, who detained the

¶12

 truck of the respondents on suspicion and when
 allegedly the respondents tried to bribe him,
 police officer made complaint to the Anti
 Corruption Bureau.

¶13

 4. None for the respondents though they
 are reportedly served and represented by
 Advocate. Delay caused in preferring leave
 application is 28 days and it was due to
 getting Government resolution passed after
 scrutiny of the documents in the Government
 office.

¶14

 5. Considering the matter, in the opinion
 of this Court, said delay is required to be
 condoned and accordingly delay condonation
 application bearing No. 89 of 2009 is allowed
 and disposed of accordigly.

¶15

 6. Criminal application No. 636 of 2009

¶16

 to appear on board on 12th June, 2009.

¶17

(A.R.JOSHI,J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Arvindkumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Ismt Ltd, Vs M/S. Bharatia Mini Spring and Engg. Co. (P) Ltd, and Ors.

Renuka M. Kalro Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahabaleshwar Giristan Nagarparishamrs.Anita Rajen Vs Mrs.Anita Rajendrakumar and Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Devapriya (Huf) Vs P.S.Srinivasan and Anr.

Sagar Shamrao More Vs Satish Atmaram Khaladkar and Anr.