Dismissed

The State of Mah v. Anita Vijay Gadiya

Bombay HC29 Aug 2011APPLN/545/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay to add co-accused Nos. 2 and 3 as respondents in a criminal appeal against acquittal. The court held that the State was not inclined to file an appeal against the co-accused and had accepted their acquittal, rendering the delay condonation unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay and addition of co-accused dismissed.

The State of Mah Vs Anita Vijay Gadiya — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 Cri.A.545.10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 545 OF 2010 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.719 OF 2004

¶5

The State of Maharashtra. ...APPLICANT

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

Sau Anita Vijay Gadiya ...RESPONDENT

¶8

 ...
Mr.N.H.Borade,APP for Applicant-State.
Mr.A.M.Gholap,Advocate for Resp.No.1.
Mr.V.P.Latange,Advocate for Resp.No.2.
Mr.S.J.Salgare,Advocate holding for
Smt.S.S.Jadhav,Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM: U.D.SALVI, J.

¶10

 DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

. Heard.

¶13

2. Perused the application and affidavit in-reply
dated 08.06.2006. The applicant, State of

¶14

Maharashtra, is seeking condonation of delay of
1859 days, caused in filing Criminal Application

¶15

2 Cri.A.545.10

¶16

for adding accused Nos. 2 and 3, as party

¶17

respondents to the Criminal Appeal No.719 of 2004.

¶18

3. Following sanction dated 21.01.2004, the State

¶19

preferred an appeal with leave application against

¶20

the Judgment and order of acquittal dated

¶21

15.07.2004, passed by the learned Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge-3, Ahmednagar, in

¶22

Sessions Case No. 31 of 2003 for the offence
punishable under section 489(B), in the
alternatively 489(C) read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, on 05.11.2004. Sanction was
granted and this appeal was preferred only against
acquittal of the accused No.1 - Anita Vijay
Gadiya, in the said case. Leave to appeal was
granted and the appeal against acquittal of the
accused No.1 Anita Gadiya came to be numbered as
Criminal Appeal No.719 of 2004.

¶23

4. It appears that, there was realization of the

¶24

merits of the appeal to be preferred against
remaining co-accused i.e. respondent No.2 Vijay

¶25

3 Cri.A.545.10

¶26

Surajmal Gadhiya and accused No.3-Shirish Vishnu
Karadkar. The appeal came up for admission before
this Court, on 04.04.2006 and it is pleaded that
Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department,
Aurangabad by written communication dated
15.04.2007 given instructions to file Criminal
Appeal against acquittal of the co-accused.
However, draft of the application for joining of
the co-accused to the appeal remained on the file
till 08.11.2009. Eventually, Criminal Application
No. 4345 of 2009 for adding co-accused to the
appeal and makes corresponding amendment to the
appeal was moved. This application came to be
disposed off on 17.12.2009 with following
observations:

¶27

“4. As far as first prayer that ground Nos. XIII and XIV as stated in the present application be permitted to be added being in the appeal memo is concerned, there is no difficulty to grant the said prayer, because ultimately appeal

¶28

4 Cri.A.545.10

¶29

will be decided on its own merits.

¶30

5. However, so far as prayer for additional of original accused Nos.2 and 2 as Respondent Nos 2 and 3 in the appeal is concerned, it may be noted that appeal was filed on 05.11.2004 as against the order passed on 15.7.2004 by III Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2003. The applicant-State cannot add new accused persons without seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against them.”

¶31

5. It is now contended that, pursuant to the
directions passed by this Court vide order dated
17.12.2009, this application for delay condonation
has been moved. There is denial regarding
existence of a communication dated 15.04.2007 from
the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad
giving directions to prefer an appeal.

¶32

. Learned APP now placed before this Court a
Official note dated 06.01.2010. It speaks about a

¶33

5 Cri.A.545.10

¶34

communication/letter No. 116 of 2006 dated
15.04.2006 regarding directions to prefer an
appeal against co-accused Nos.2 and 3. Learned APP
conceded to the fact that there is no such
communication dated 15.04.2007, but it is a
typographical mistake in the application and it
ought to have been read as a communication dated
15.04.2006. He placed before this Court the
relevant communication dated 15.04.2006, received
from the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad.
The contents of communication are reproduced
herein below:

¶35

“With reference to the above noted subject, I am to inform you that, this office has been already instructed to file appeal against the order of acquittal of accused No.1 only.

¶36

Now considering the view expressed by Hon’ble High Court, you are requested to file appeal against order of acquittal in respect of accused No.2 and 3 also.”

¶37

6 Cri.A.545.10

¶38

6. A communication dated 15.04.2006 is in

¶39

response to letter dated 04.04.2006 addressed by
Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad, relevant portions of the letter dated
04.04.2006 are quoted herein below:

¶40

“Today the appeal was placed for admission before this Hon’ble Court(Hon’ble J.H. Bhatiya,J), While considering the judgment of the trial Court, it was observed that accused no.1 got the currency notes from accused No.2 while accused No.2 got these notes from accused No.3 who is working in Nagar Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nagar. It is also observed that, even though accused No.2, 3 and 4(absconding accused) were charged for the offences, the learned trial Court has not given any reasons for acquittal of these accused.

¶41

The Hon’ble Court orally directed the undersigned to take instruction from the office of your good self why the appeal is not preferred against the accused No.2 and 3. From the proposal, it is revealed that the

¶42

7 Cri.A.545.10

¶43

office of your good self was of the opinion that, there was no cogent and clinching evidence collected to show that accused no.2 and 3 were the persons connected with possession or delivery of the said notes”

¶44

7. It is worthwhile to read mind of State, in
relation to order dated 04.04.2006, noted in Farad
Sheet “As Mr. Varale, learned APP seeks time to
obtain instructions as to why the accused Nos. 2
and 3 are not made parties respondents to this
appeal. Stand over to 21.04.2004”.

¶45

8. It is, thus, clear that this Court only
called for explanation as to why accused Nos.2 and
3 were not made party respondents to the appeal
and nothing more. It appears that this was misread

¶46

as directions and the State blinded by this
misunderstanding proceeded to issue directions
dated 15.04.2006, oblivious of the merits of the

¶47

case for appeal against accused Nos. 2 and 3.

¶48

8 Cri.A.545.10

¶49

9. On this backdrop, it is abundantly clear that

¶50

this is not a case where the State was inclined to
file an Appeal against co-accused Nos.2 and 3, but
was prevented from taking steps for sufficient
reason/causes. In fact, the State was not bent on
preferring the Appeal against respondent Nos. 2
and 3 and had accepted acquittal of the co-accused
in the said case. Application for condonation of
delay is therefore not justified. Application
stands rejected.

¶51

 Sd/-
 [ U.D.SALVI, J.]

¶52

MTK

The State of Mah v. Anita Vijay Gadiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah v. Anita Vijay Gadiya

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 Sk.Mahemood Sk.Pashu and Ors.

Chandrakant Jagannath Mahajan Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shaikh Salim Ibrahim

Priyadarshani Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Sharada Shivaji Javare

The Stte of Maharashtra Vs Sow Anita Vijay Gadiya

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Br Manager S Udeshmukh Vs Rajesh Patil and Anr.