The Bombay High Court condoned a 16-day delay in filing an application for leave to appeal. The leave application was subsequently dismissed, as the High Court found no perversity or ground for interference in the trial court's acquittal.
Delay of 16 days condoned; leave to file appeal against acquittal refused.
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.
1
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APPA) No. 720 of 2012 The State of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr R. S. Nayak, Adv for applicant-State Coram : P. V. HARDAS AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ
Dated : 17th October 2012
2
Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, dated 16th May 2012, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2010, acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
3
perused findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such perusal, according to us, no case for interference in an appeal against acquittal is made out. The view of the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused.
JUDGE
JUDGE
joshi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 16 days in filing an application for leave to appeal.
Whether to grant leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the respondent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Vishwanath
P. V. Hardas
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
