Allowed

Sau Khelan W/O Rajkumar Gabhne v. Suraj S/O Prakash Rangari

Bombay HC29 Aug 2012APPA/525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for condonation of delay, the High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) allowed the condonation of an 81-day delay in preferring an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, citing lack of communication and financial constraints. The applicant was granted leave to file the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; delay condoned; matter kept for hearing on leave application to allow filing of appeal.

Sau Khelan W/O Rajkumar Gabhne Vs Suraj S/O Prakash Rangari — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

2908appa525.12

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.525 OF 2012

¶5

(Khelan Rajkumar Gabhne vs. Suraj Prakash Rangari) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Shri I.S. Charlewar, Advocate for applicant.

¶7

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 29, 2012

¶8

Heard learned Advocate Shri Charlewar for

¶9

the applicant/original complainant on this application for condonation of delay of 81 days in preferring appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶10

The facts of this matter are rather crucial. However, without going into those details as to how in the matter of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a summary trial lingered at various stages, suffice it to say that the final order of dismissal of Summary Criminal Case No. 2581/2010 was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur on 15/2/2012 dismissing the complaint for non appearance

¶11

2908appa525.12 2/3

¶12

of the complainant on that date and earlier three dates. Apparently prior to such dismissal, the matter was fully heard and also reached the stage of accused examining his two witnesses in defence and thereafter the matter was taken up before another Court and which relying on some decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered the matter to be tried de novo and as such, under the said premise, the said another Court took up the matter as fresh and considering the absence of the complainant on earlier three dates, dismissed the entire case in which cheque of Rs.2 lakhs given to the complainant was bounced in the year 2010.

¶13

Considering the merits of the present application for condonation of delay, it appears that the delay of 81 days caused to prefer the appeal against acquittal was due to lack of communication between earlier Counsel of the complainant and the complainant herself. This cause for delay was also due to financial difficulties in arranging for the professional and other incidental expenses for appointing another Counsel and getting the information of then pending case from another Counsel and knowing the dismissal of the case after three months of such dismissal.

¶14

2908appa525.12

¶15

In the present matter, respondent/ acquitted accused is already served and was represented by learned Advocate Shri Dupare. However, none is present today so also none was present on the earlier date. In that event, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present application for condonation of delay can be allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application and hence, the present application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The matter is kept for hearing on leave application to allow the applicant to file appeal against the acquittal. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is disposed of as allowed.

¶16

Criminal Application (APPA) No.710/2012

¶17

Fresh Notice be issued against the respondent/acquitted accused, returnable on 12/9/2012.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

khj

Sau Khelan W/O Rajkumar Gabhne v. Suraj S/O Prakash Rangari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau Khelan W/O Rajkumar Gabhne v. Suraj S/O Prakash Rangari

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

Manohar S/O Kondbaji Jadhav Vs Mahadev Bapurao Kale

Mahesh S/O Balaram Neharotra Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its P.S.O.

Sunil S/O Gulabraoji Chafle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Samudrapur

State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.I. Vs Chhutulal @ Dharmu S/O Nakhu Pache

Pradip Nanduji Patre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ps Keshori

Dr Triveni W/O Mahesh Wadnerkar Vs State of Maharashtra Pso Kamptee Police Station Distt Nagpur