Allowed

Sow.Rajni Raju Sheety v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Nov 2014APPLN/1209/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application for condonation of 304 days delay for filing a criminal appeal against an acquittal, accepting illness as sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted, notice was waived by respondents, and the case was called for rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; appeal admitted; notice to respondent No.2 and State waived.

Sow.Rajni Raju Sheety Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 1209/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.1209 of 2014 In Criminal Appeal Stamp No.123 of 2014

¶4

Rajni w/o Raju Shetty.

¶5

.. Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. N.B. Narwade, Advocate, for applicant.

¶9

Shri. S.R. Palnitkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶10

Shri. N.K. Kakade, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 5th NOVEMBER 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant for some time. It appears that respondent No.4 Maheshkumar could not be served in the application filed for condonation of delay. In view of nature of allegations made as against respondent No.4 this Court holds that if applicant wants to make progress in the matter then something needs to be done. Sufficient time was given to the applicant to supply correct address and new address

¶14

2 Application 1209/2014

¶15

of respondent No.4 Maheshkumar. No such address is given. So, the matter as against respondent No.4Maheshkumar stands dismissed.

¶16

The application is filed for condonation of delay of 304 days caused in filing appeal against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.7/2010 which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-4 Ahmednagar. The case was filed by the police for offences punishable under sections 451, 211, 195, 120(B), 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 20(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the respondents are acquitted. Present applicant was the complainant of the case. Both the sides are heard.

¶17

The case of the applicant is that as it is a State case, in ordinary course, the State ought to have filed the appeal. It is her contention that her husband was sick and he was indoor patient for quite some time. Some record of Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune is produced of the relevant period. In view of the contents of the application and the record this Court holds that sufficient cause is shown. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶18

3 Application 1209/2014

¶19

Notice before admission of appeal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for the State. Learned counsel Shri. Kakade waives service for the respondent No.2. No notice is to be issued to respondent No.4 as the application for condonation of delay as against respondent No.4 is dismissed. Call R & P. Stand over to 27-1-2015.

¶20

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶21

rsl

Sow.Rajni Raju Sheety v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sow.Rajni Raju Sheety v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shahuraj Digambar Gurav and Another

Sampat Reddy Ranga Reddy Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Deepakkumar Shankarlal and Company Vs Govind Rajendra Medewar

Aravind Shankar Manegaonkar Vs the State of Mah

Sunilkumar Vasudeo Gupta Vs the State of Mah

Hindustan Level Ltd. Now Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs the State of Mah