Allowed

The State of Mah v. Ravindra Eknath Marathe

Bombay HC7 Sept 2010APPLN/1009/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed criminal applications for condonation of delay and granted leave to appeal in cases involving property misappropriation by trustees. The court held the delay was unintentional and the conflicting lower court decisions warranted higher intervention.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay and grant of leave to appeal allowed; service waived; no attachment under section 390 CrPC.

The State of Mah Vs Ravindra Eknath Marathe — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1009 OF 2010
State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
 VERSUS
Ravindra Eknath Marathe,
Age : 45 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Jalna .. Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1010 OF 2010
State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
 VERSUS
Ravindra Eknath Marathe .. Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1011 OF 2010
State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
 VERSUS
Ashok Mohanrao Pangarkar .. Respondent

¶4

AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1012 OF 2010
State of Maharashtra .. Applicant
 VERSUS
Ashok Mohanrao Pangarkar .. Respondent

¶5

Mrs. S.D. Shelke, APP for the Applicant-State

¶6

Mr. Joshi, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for
the respondent (In Cri. Appln. 1010.2010, 1009.2010)

¶7

Mr. K.B. Jadhav, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate
for the respondent (In Cri. Appln. 1011.2010 & 1012.2010)

¶8

...

¶9

(2) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2

¶10

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶11

ORAL ORDER:-

¶12

1.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for
the respondents.

¶13

2. There is delay of 20 days and 24 days

¶14

respectively in filing of the Applications seeking
leave to Appeal. It is alleged that the proposal of

¶15

Appeal was received by the Law & Judiciary
Department, Aurangabad and was cleared after
scrutiny. It was received in the Office of the
Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad on
16.2.2010 and was allotted to the concerned APP for

¶16

drafting of the Appeal. There took place certain
delay due to time consumed in preparing the draft and
obtaining necessary instructions.

¶17

3. Considering the fact that the delay is un-

¶18

intentional and is duly explained in the

¶19

Applications, the delay will have to be condoned.

¶20

Hence, the Applications for condonation of delay are
allowed.

¶21

(3) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2

¶22

4.So far as request for grant of leave to

¶23

Appeal is concerned, it may be stated that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the
respondents by order dated 17.12.2007 in RCC 616 of
2005. The learned Sessions Judge however allowed the
Criminal Appeal nos. 1 of 2008 and 2 of 2008. The
charges against both the accused would show that the
accused nos. 1 and 2 are the sevekaris of Shri Swami
Samarth Kendra. It was alleged that though the
accused no.1 was supposed to take care of the
property of the trust, yet he and the accused no.2
got transferred plot nos. 66 and 67 in favour of the
accused no.2 under a registered sale deed dated
5.10.1995. The plots are the properties of the trust
called “Shree Swami Samarth Adhyatmik Bal Sanskar
Kendra”. The sale deed shows name of the purchaser
as “Proposed Shree Swami Samarth Seva Kendra, Jalna.”
The question is whether there was criminal intention
to grab the property of the trust.

¶24

5. Considering the contradictory judgments of

¶25

both the Courts below, this is a fit case in which

¶26

(4) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2

¶27

leave to Appeal needs to be granted. Hence, the
Applications are allowed and leave to Appeal is
granted. The learned Advocate in respective
Applications waive service for the respondents.
Hence, no action under section 390 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is called for.

¶28

6.Admit.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

arp

The State of Mah v. Ravindra Eknath Marathe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Ravindra Eknath Marathe

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Narayan Pandharinath Choudhary Vs Shilabai Narayan Choudhary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal Vs Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.

Sant Eknath Labour Welfare Education and Charitable Trust Vs Laxman Limba Kirtane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe

Babasaheb Dhondiram Mundhe Vs the State of Mah and Anr.