Dismissed

Vikas Krishna Repale v. Dr. Chandramani Bhagwan More and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2009WP/1315/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Sessions Judge's refusal to condone a 378-day delay in filing a revision application. The Court held that political tour activities did not constitute sufficient cause for delay and declined to interfere with the lower court's view under Article 27.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned order of the Sessions Judge was dismissed.

Vikas Krishna Repale Vs Dr. Chandramani Bhagwan More… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2009

¶6

Vikas Krishna Repale ... Petitioner versus Dr.Chandramani Bhagwan More & Anr ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.V.M. Thorat for petitioner Mr.K.V. Saste APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATED : 26th November 2009

¶10

P.C.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th March 2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mumbai declining to condone the delay of 378 days in filing of a revision application against the order of issuance of process.

¶12

In Criminal Application No.3442/S/2007 filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s.500 of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate issued the process on 8th October 2007. Accordingly, the summons was served on the petitioner on 16th October 2007. He filed a revision application against the order of issuance of

¶13

¶14

process before the Court of Sessions on 10th February 2009 which was barred by limitation by 378 days. He also prayed for a condonation of delay in filing of the revision. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and the delay was not properly explained. He accordingly dismissed the revision application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner met with the vehicular accident in September 2008 and was required to take complete bed rest for three months. He further submitted that the delay prior to September 2008 was also sufficiently explained and therefore, learned Sessions Judge ought to have condoned the delay. It may be noted that the petitioner became aware of the order of the issuance of the process on 16th October 2007 and applicant is alleged to have met with an accident in September 2008. By the time the petitioner met with the accident the application was already barred by limitation by other 9 months. Therefore, subsequent accident would not be a sufficient cause for the earlier delay. As regards the earlier cause, what has been stated in the application for condonation of delay is as follows:-

¶16

“In the aforesaid fact and circumstances it is humbly prayed that the reason for causing such delay for filing the present revision application is that he is secretary of Bhartiya Vidyarthi Sena and was held up in the assistance of Shivsens MP Shri Aknath Shinde, who was on political tour to all over Maharashtra in that relevant period”

¶17

¶18

In my view, this is hardly a cause at all for condonation of delay. Even if the averments made in the aforesaid paragraph are assumed to be true they do not make out a sufficient cause. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that political tour in support of a political person this does not amount to a sufficient cause is a possible view which cannot be interfered with in exercise of a writ jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(D.G. KARNIK,J.)

Vikas Krishna Repale v. Dr. Chandramani Bhagwan More and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Krishna Repale v. Dr. Chandramani Bhagwan More and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath S. Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Champavati Shankar Sawant Vs Madan Vishwanath Patil and Anr.

Sachin Eknath Bhoir Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

Dattatraya Mahadeo Sukthankar . Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr. .

Smt. Nirmala v. Damle . Vs Shri Ashok Trimbak Datar and Another .

Sunil Jagannath Pol Vs the State of Maharashtra