Single judge ordered condonation of 62 days delay in filing application for leave to prefer appeal against acquittal, finding delay explained satisfactorily and not willful.
Delay of 62 days in filing accompanying application sought for leave to file appeal is condoned; application 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.
crap3356.11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3356 OF 2011 IN
CRIMINALAPPLICATION NO. 3355 OF 2011
Chandrakant s/o Pandhari Ige ...Applicant (Orig.complainant) VERSUS Sunil s/o Narayanrao Gite ...Respondent (Orig.accused)
Shri S.V.Munde, advocate h/f Shri V.D.Gunale, advocate for applicant Respondent served, absent.
CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th November, 2011
PER COURT :
2crap3356.11
judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.3.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Latur, in S.T.C.C. No. 1599 of 2009.
3 For the reasons stated in the application, it appears that the applicant has explained the delay satisfactorily and it further appears that the delay caused in filing the accompanying application is not willful, deliberate and intentional and same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.
4 In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' thereof and delay of 62 days caused in filing the accompanying application seeking leave to file appeal stands condoned and present Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),
JUDGE.
dbm/crap3356.11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay of 62 days in filing application for leave to prefer appeal is condonable?
Chandrakant s/o Pandhari Ige
Sunil s/o Narayanrao Gite
SHRIHARI P.DAVARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court