This Crim App discarded as applicant absent despite notice and implausible explanation of mental shock. Court rejected request for condonation of delay and dismissed the application without merit.
Crim AppNO.246/2013 and Crim AppNO.264/2013 dismissed.
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.
sbw
p.1 appln264.13
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2013 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.264 OF 2013
Smt. Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh
...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
None for the Applicant.
Ms. A. A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent No.1– State. Mr. Sanjay M. Indulkar-in-person, Respondent No.2 and representative of Respondent No.3 present in Court.
CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 14th October, 2013
1] None appears for the applicant.
2] The respondent has shown copy of intimation sent to applicant asking her to remain present in the Court. Still she is not present.
3] Heard the respondent. He states that he does not accept the liability subject matter of the transactions, however he is willing to pay by way of consolation and without accepting any liability an amount of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand). He has even brought a demand draft drawn in the name of applicant Smt. Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh.
4] Since none appears for the applicant, this Court has perused the impugned judgment. By the said impugned judgment, case was dismissed for default and the accused was acquitted.
sbw 2/2 p.1 appln264.13
5] The applicant has given the explanation as to the reason of absence that as the applicant was in tremendous mental shock due to death of her husband, she was not able to attend the court proceedings, and after she returned to Bombay she had submitted present application for leave to appeal.
6] It is noticed that in past on some dates the applicant was present in this Court and talks relating to giving some amount to the applicant by the accused by way of consolation had taken place.
7] Failure of the applicant to remain present before this Court on various dates explains that she is not willing to receive said amount offered by way of consolation.
8] This Court had taken into account the reasons offered by applicant towards absence before the trial Court. The reasons of absence are not explained plausibly and satisfactorily.
9] Applicant has failed to show ground explaining delay and absence before the trial Court. Therefore the application for condonation of delay and present application do not have any merit and both applications are dismissed.
( A. H. JOSHI, J.)
wadhwa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grounds for absence from trial court and the present application for condonation of delay/placement under Art.143 are meritorious.
Smt. Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
A. H. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
