Allowed

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

Bombay HC2 Aug 2010APPLN/511/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, heard an application for condonation of a 12-day delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal order. The court found the delay satisfactory and not willful, granting the application in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 12 days delay in filing the accompanying appeal against the order of acquittal.

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2010

¶4

 _________________________________________________________________________________
 Office Notes, Office |
 Memoranda of Coram, |
 appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders
 orders or |
 directions and |
 Registrar's orders |

¶5

Mr.B.J. Sonavane, A.P.P. for applicant.

¶6

Heard Mr.B.J. Sonavane, learned A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.S.A. Dhengle, advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 absent.

¶7

This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 12 days caused in filing accompanying appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 16.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.46/2008, acquitting the respondent nos.1 to 4 (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶8

For the reasons stated in the application, the applicant has explained the delay satisfactorily. It appears that the said delay is not willful, deliberate and certainly it is not inordinate and therefore, the delay of 12 days caused in filing accompanying appeal is deserves to be

¶9

condoned in the interest of justice.

¶10

In the result, the present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause `B' thereof and delay of 12 days caused in filing accompanying appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal is condoned. The present application is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE.

¶12

02.08.2010 gas/cri511.10

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

S S Yadav Vs Radhakishan Narhariappa Shengule and Ors.

Balbhim Ramrao Jadhav Vs Govindlal Dwarkadas Hedda and Anr.

S S Yadav Food Inspector Food and Drugs Vs Jagdishprasad Narayanprasad Jaiswal and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dayanand Baburao Suraywanshi and Ors.

Vishnu Vithalrao Supekar Vs Shriram Raghu Rathod

Mohd. Iliyas Sk. Omar Kirmani Vs the State of Mah and Ors.