Single judge rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a leave to appeal due to inordinate lapse without sufficient cause, though noting a separate criminal appeal remains admitted.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; order does not affect pending Criminal Appeal No.685/2016.
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.
1342.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2017
Champatrao s/o.Manikrao Jadhav
Age 65 Years, Occupation Agriculture
R/o. CIDCO New Nanded
Taluka & District Nanded.
APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhujang s/o.Kishan More. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Y.M.Khan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.D.Ghayal, APP for Respondent – State
...
A.M.DHAVALE,JJ.
Date: 16.08.2017
ORDER:
1]This Application is filed for
condonation of delay caused in filing the
application seeking leave to appeal, against
the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 9th
April, 2015, passed by Sessions Judge, Nanded
in Sessions Case No.06/2014.
2]There is inordinate delay of 640
days in filing the application seeking leave
1342.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
2
to appeal. No sufficient cause is disclosed
in the application explaining the delay in
filing the application.
3] The Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & another Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer1 held that the delay cannot be condoned unless the sufficient cause is disclosed. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumar & others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and
another2 while considering the delay in filing the Revision Application has taken a view that in absence of showing sufficient
cause for condonation of delay, the delay
cannot be condoned.
4]In that view of the matter, we are
not inclined to entertain this application
for condonation of delay. Hence the
application stands rejected.
1 [2013] 14 SCC 81
2 [2013] 11 SCC 668
3
1342.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
5]However, we make it clear that
rejection of this application has no effect
on pending Criminal Appeal i.e. Criminal
Appeal No.685/2016 [The State of Maharashtra
Vs. Bhujang Kisan More], which is already
admitted and arising out the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 9th April, 2015,
passed by Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions
Case No.06/2014.
6]Needless to observe that with leave
of the Court the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant can assist learned APP
during the course of hearing of the Criminal
Appeal No.685/2016.
[A.M.DHAVALE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the inordinate delay of 640 days in filing an application for leave to appeal.
Whether the absence of sufficient cause for delay justifies rejection of the condonation application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Basawaraj & another Vs. Special Acquisition OfficerReferred¶23
Basawaraj & another Vs. Special Acquisition Officer [2013] 14 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Kumar & others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd.Referred¶24
Kumar & others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2013] 11 SCC 668 · Who else cites this
Champatrao Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
Bhujang More
A.M. Dhavale
S.S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court