Allowed

Raju S/O. Hiraman More (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Ramnagar Nagpur

Bombay HC22 Sept 2017APPR/119/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur condoned a delay of 77 days in filing a criminal revision application. The applicant was a convicted prisoner representing himself through Legal Aid, and the Court accepted the reasons for delay despite the State's opposition.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 77 days in filing the criminal revision application is condoned.

Raju S/O. Hiraman More (in Jail) Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

appr119.17 25

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO.119 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO........ OF 2017

¶5

Raju s/o Hiraman More

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Mah., thr. PSO Ramnagar, Chandrapur

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's Order

¶10

Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni, Counsel appointed for the applicant. Shri V.P. Gangane, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶11

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2017.

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel Mrs. S.P. Kulkarni who is

¶13

appointed by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee at Nagpur to represent the applicant.

¶14

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. Delay is of 77 days.

¶15

3. The applicant is convicted, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, by learned Magistrate at Chandrapur in RCC No.664 of 2008. The appeal carried by the applicant bearing Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2012 was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chandrapur on 25.1.2017.

.....2/-

appr119.17 25

4. The statement is made before this Court that the

¶20

applicant is in jail.

¶21

5. Statement accepted.

¶22

6. In view of the fact that the applicant is in jail and the present proceedings are filed through the Legal Aid, with the assistance of learned counsel appointed for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, I have gone though the reasons for condonation of delay. Though the application is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶23

I am satisfied about the reasons put forth by the applicant.

¶24

7. Hence, the criminal application for condonation of delay is allowed.

¶25

8. Delay caused for preferring the revision is hereby

¶26

condoned.

¶27

9. Office is directed to register the revision and place

¶28

the revision before the Court for admission.

¶29

10. Stand over to 26.9.2017.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

!! BRW !!

¶32

...../-

Raju S/O. Hiraman More (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Ramnagar Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O. Hiraman More (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Ramnagar Nagpur

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

Uttam S/O. Baban Babhulkar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Shegaon (City) Tq. Shegaon Dist. Buldana

Shivkant S/O. Chinnekan Verputti Vs State of Maahrashtra Thr. Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur

Jaywant Malhari Paikrao and Another (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Ps Durgapur Dist. Chandrapur

Mohd. Danish S/O. Abdul Rashid Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer of Police Station Malkapur City Dist. Buldhana

Ramiz S/O. Sarwar Khan Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Ramnagar, Chandrapur

Abdul Shabbir S/O. Abdul Bashir and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. City Kotwali Dist. Akola