The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant's criminal revision application due to failure to condone a delay of over four years, holding the stated reasons unsatisfactory, thus dismissing the revision.
Condonation of delay dismissed; criminal revision disposed of.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 15 of 2009
IN
REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 12 OF 2009
WITH
REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.12 OF 2009
Prafullata Ramesh Kargave
.. Applicant.
vs.
Ramesh B. Kargave (Kamble) & Ors...Respondents.
==========
Ms.Chhaya Khamkar h/f Atul Vanarse, Advocate for applicant.
Mr.P.A.Pol, APP for respondents.
==========
CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.
DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009.
PC :-
1The applicant herein is the original complainant
at whose instance proceedings under Section 498(A)r/w
34 of Indian Penal Code were initiated against the
respondents. By the Judgment and Order dated 30th
April 2001, the Trial Judge convicted the respondents
for the offences under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-.
On filing appeal by the respondents, the lower
2
Appellate Court by the judgment and order dated 7th
July 2004 though maintained the conviction u/s 498-A
r/w 34 reduced the substantive sentence till rising of
the Court by maintaining the punishment of fine amount
imposed by the Trial Court.
2.The present application is for condonation of
delay of four years and sixty days in challenging the
order of the appellate Court in filing this Criminal
revision application. The reason stated in the
application for condonation of delay is that the
applicant was in two minds as regards filing of the
revision and she was under impression that the State
will challenge the order dated 7th July 2004. Both the
reasons stated in the application are far from
satisfactory.
4Hence, the application for condonation of
delay is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the delay
condonation application, nothing survives in the
revision and the same is accordingly disposed off.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision was liable to be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prafullata Ramesh Kargave
Ramesh B. Kargave (Kamble) & Ors
R.P. Sondurbaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court