Allowed

Dada S/O Dhodiba Dolas v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jun 2017APPLN/3348/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An order condoning an inordinate delay of 397 days in filing a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 344 CrPC. The High Court found the delay genuine due to lack of legal knowledge and condoned it to prevent injustice.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 397 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned. Criminal Application disposed of. Criminal Appeal to be registered.

Dada S/O Dhodiba Dolas Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 Cri.A-3348-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3348 OF 2016 IN/WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 389 OF 2016

¶4

Dada S/o Dhondiba Dolas

¶5

...APPLICANT

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. Vishal Bagadiya, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.D. Namde, APP for respondent - State

¶9

CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.

¶10

DATED : 6^th JUNE, 2017.

¶11

Order :-

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the application. There is delay of 397 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 19-03-2015 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 226 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C, Kannad, District Aurangabad.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, but it is accidental and genuine one. It has been caused as the applicant was not aware about the legal provisions and he has been convicted for giving false evidence in the court proceedings before the learned trial Court. In case the delay is not condoned, it would cause prejudice and injustice to the applicant. Hence, learned counsel prays to condone the delay.

¶14

The learned APP raised objection and submits that there is delay of 397 days and the same has not been explained in proper manner. In such circumstances, delay would not be condoned in the interest of justice.

¶15

2 Cri.A-3348-16

¶16

Admittedly, learned trial Court held applicant guilty for the offence punishable under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and imposed penalty of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred). There was an amicable settlement in between the applicant and concerned accused in the proceedings. The applicant adduced evidence before the concerned Court in lieu of compromise arrived at between the parties. But, the learned trial Court drawn adverse inference and held applicant guilty under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. Considering the nature of the charges pitted against applicant, I find it justifiable to so, for final hearing into the matter. In such circumstances, delay is required to be condoned, in the interest of justice though it is inordinate one. In case, the delay is not condoned it would cause prejudice to the applicant.

¶17

Considering the subject-matter and the reasons stated in the application, it is essential to condone the delay. Accordingly, the criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". Delay stands condoned. Criminal Application No. 3348 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly. Criminal Appeal be registered accordingly.

¶18

In the meanwhile, call for record and proceedings.

¶19

List the appeal for admission on 3^rd July, 2017.

¶20

[ K. K. SONAWANE ]

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

MTK

Dada S/O Dhodiba Dolas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dada S/O Dhodiba Dolas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virbahadur S/O. Kulbahadur Gurang @ Thapa Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Manikrao Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Prithvichand Vhora and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harshal Madhukar Jadhav Vs Sunil Ramdas Bairagi and Anr.

Amol Bhanudas Parve. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Govind Kisan Malshikhare Vs Sunita Govind Malshikhare and Ors.