Allowed

Premnath Tukaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Mar 2012APL/293/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application challenged the rejection of an application to condone delay in filing a revision against an order permitting a Narco Analysis test. The High Court upheld the petitioner's claim that poverty and family tragedy justified the delay, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the Sessions Court to hear the revision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing condonation of delay was set aside; the delay was condoned, and the Sessions Court was directed to hear the revision application on merits.

Premnath Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

SSK/960

apl 293.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2012

¶6

Premnath Tukaram Patil ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Miss Pooja Bhojne, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶10

DATED : 26th March, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By the present application, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23^rd January, 2012 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 2011 whereunder his application for condonation of delay of 1 year 10 months and 8 days is rejected.

¶13

The petitioner came to be arrested on 29^th September, 2009, in C.R. No.I-253 of 2009 registered with Nerul Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the prosecution failed to file charge-sheet within the statutory stipulated period, the petitioner was released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C..

¶14

SSK/960 2

¶15

apl 293.12

¶16

While the petitioner was in custody, the investigation officer on 5^th October, 2009, preferred an application alleging that the petitioner was not co-operating in the conduct of investigations and for permission to conduct Narco, Brain Mapping and Lie Detection Test on the person of the petitioner. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 15^th October, 2009. The petitioner challenged this order by filing civil revision application before the Sessions Court. Since there was delay as stated above, an application for condonation of delay was preferred. However, the same was rejected by the order impugned.

¶17

Learned Magistrate allowed the application of the Investigation Officer as the petitioner gave no objection for Narco Analysis Test only. It is the case of the petitioner that he was misguided and on that basis his consent was obtained for Narco Analysis Test. It is further case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the law in this regard. In these circumstances, he had challenged the said order by filing the revision.

¶18

So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the petitioner has stated that he is illiterate and belongs to the lower strata of the society. The petitioner also stated that his father had died and his mother met with an accident, and therefore, he was under tremendous mental stress as his family was depended on him. The petitioner was also not

¶19

SSK/960 3

¶20

apl 293.12

¶21

represented by any advocate to defend him as he had no resources to engage the services of an advocate.

¶22

Learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Addl. Session Judge, Thane, refused to condone the delay by observing that merely because the petitioner is poor and belongs to lower strata of the society, he is not entitled for condonation of delay.

¶23

Respondent No.1-State has filed an affidavit of Laxman Bhausaheb Kale, Police Inspector, attached to Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The affidavit reveals that though the Magistrate passed order on 15^th October, 2009, till today, Narco Analysis Test is not carried on the petitioner. In the said affidavit, the investigation officer has also not denied the factum of death of the petitioner’s father as well as the fact that the petitioner’s mother met with an accident. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter and especially in view of the fact that the petitioner is facing charge under Section 302 of IPC, the interest of justice will be subserved, if the delay occurred in filing the revision application is condoned and the petitioner’s said revision application is heard on merits. The present criminal application is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order :-

¶24

The impugned order dated 23^rd January, 2012 passed by Extra

SSK/960

apl 293.12

Joint Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, refusing the

¶29

condonation of delay is set-aside.

¶30

The petitioner’s Cri. Misc. Application No.229 of 2011 is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶31

The Extra Joint Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, is directed to hear the petitioner’s revision application on merits.

¶32

During the pendency and final disposal of the said revision application, the interim order granted by this Court on 9^th March, 2012 shall remain in force.

¶33

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Premnath Tukaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premnath Tukaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Viniyog Parivar Trust and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Vasantrao Betkekar Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Ajaykumar Santosh Kesarwani and Ors. Vs Rashmi Ajaykumra Kesarwani and Anr.

M.V. Global Purity and Anr. Vs Union of India

The Bank of New York Mellon Vs Zenith Infotech Ltd. and 5 Ors.