Criminal Application filed by CBI seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Claimed reasons were administrative while the alleged offence was from 1990. The court rejected the condonation prayer and dismissed the application.
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.
11-APPLN-43-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2014
CB, BS&FC, MUMBAI )...APPLICANT
V/s.
BHUPEN CHAMPAKLAL DALAL & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS
Shri S.K.Shinde, Public Prosecutor, a/w. Shri Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Applicant – CBI.
Shri Bhupen C. Dalal – Respondent No.1 – appearing in person.
Shri Akash P. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6.
Smt.Racheeta Dhuru i/b. Smt.Sangita Gudhka & Shri Kevin Chettiar, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
Shri D.P.Adsule, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 23rd OCTOBER 2015.
P.C. :
1 Heard Shri S.K.Shinde, learned Public Prosecutor for
the CBI. Heard Respondent No.1. Heard Smt.Racheeta Dhuru,
learned counsel for respondent no.7. Heard Shri Akash P. Shah,
the learned counsel for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.
avk 1/4
11-APPLN-43-2014.doc
2 The delay is of 142 days. The only ground, on which condonation of delay is sought for, as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the application, is to the effect, that 'the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period due to various administrative reasons in which the file had to be routed through various senior officers at Mumbai and New Delhi and taking opinion of various Law Officers.' No details of the movement of the relevant files have been given. Even otherwise, accepting such a ground, as justification for the delay and for its condonation is legally untenable.
2 Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondents and respondent no.1 have pointed out to me that the prosecution pertains to an offence, that allegedly took place in the year 1990. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in the year 1993. The trial concluded in the year 2013. The respondents also submitted that no financial loss has been caused to any institution by commission of the alleged offences.
avk 2/4
11-APPLN-43-2014.doc
the relevant details and better grounds for condonation of delay, by amending the application. However, such a prayer is made, only when the court indicated that the application for condonation of delay would be dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 3/4
11-APPLN-43-2014.doc
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original
signed Judgment / Order.
avk 4/4
CB, BS&FC, Mumbai
Bhupen Champaklal Dalal
Respondents 4, 5 & 6
Respondent No.7
Respondent-State
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
