The High Court of Judicature at Bombay condoned a 32-day delay in filing a criminal appeal challenging an acquittal, finding sufficient cause exists for the omission. The application was allowed.
Condonation of delay of 32 days in filing appeal against acquittal.
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.
1/2
25-appa.321.2013.doc
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.233 OF 2013
Neeta Anandrao Nikan and Ors. v/s.
Jagdish Dinkar Jagtap and Ors.
...Applicants.
...Respondents.
Mr.G.B.Walawalkar, i/b. Mr.S.P.Thorat, for the applicants. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, for respondent nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
AUGUST 2, 2013.
P.C.
condonation of delay of 32 days in filing an Appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel representing the respondents and upon
2/2
25-appa.321.2013.doc
consideration of the averments made in the application, we are satisfied that the applicants have offered a sufficient cause for the delay which has occurred in filing of the Appeal.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 32 days in filing a criminal appeal against acquittal warrants condonation.
Neeta Anandrao Nikan
Jagdish Dinkar Jagtap
P. V. Hardas
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
