This application seeks condonation of a 54-day delay in preferring an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 340 CrPC. The court held that the applicant's travel and legal consultation provided sufficient cause.
Application allowed; delay condoned; no costs imposed.
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.
34.APPA.496.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.300 OF 2017
Ms. Simran Shivkumar Mishra .... Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Ms. Sayali Dhuru i/b.Mr.K.S.Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. P.D. Prasad Rao i/b.Dr.Gita Kasturi & Co for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for respondent No.1/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.
DATED : 23rd OCTOBER 2018.
P.C. :
preferring an appeal challenging order rejecting the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
argued that the applicant is 19 years old girl and she was required
1/3
Aarti Palkar
34.APPA.496.17.doc
to travel from Kharghar to Alibaug. Thereafter, she was required to approach to the Advocate at Bombay for seeking legal advise for steps to be taken in the matter and in following this procedure, the delay has occasioned.
2/3
Aarti Palkar
34.APPA.496.17.doc
contact the Advocate at Mumbai and to seek legal advise in the matter, which resulted in delay in filing the appeal. The reasons so stated do constitute a sufficient cause in the light of the fact that the averments are not controverted by filing the counteraffidavit. Once sufficient cause is shown, in my opinion, there is no question on imposing cost on the other side. As the delay is so marginal, I do not want to impose cost in the matter. Hence, the order.
- : ORDER : -
i) The application is allowed.
ii) The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal
is condoned.
iii) The application is accordingly disposed of.
(A.M.BADAR J.)
3/3
Aarti Palkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for condoning a 54-day delay in filing an appeal challenging an order under Section 340 CrPC.
Whether the applicant is liable for any cost despite the condonation of delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ms. Simran Shivkumar Mishra
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
