Allowed

Sangita Krishna Powar v. Laxman Bapu Mane and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2018APPLN/277/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's application for condonation of delay in filing a leave to appeal under Section 376 IPC. The court held that seeking legal advice and raising funds constituted sufficient cause to excuse the delay.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Sangita Krishna Powar Vs Laxman Bapu Mane and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

907.APPLN.277.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.277 OF 2017

¶5

Sou. Sangita Krishna Powar …. Applicant V/s. Laxman Bapu Mane & Anr. …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Samarth Moray i/b.Mr.V.S. Talkute for respondent No.1.

¶8

Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for respondent No.2/State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 23^rd OCTOBER 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring

¶13

an application for leave to appeal. The application is by the alleged victim of the crime in question. She wants to challenge the Judgment and Order of acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There is delay in preferring the application for leave to appeal.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/First

1/3

Aarti Palkar

907.APPLN.277.17.doc

Informant. He argued that there is some delay in preferring the application for leave to appeal as the Judgment itself was not ready for about two months and thereafter the applicant contacted her Advocate and decided to challenge the said Judgment and Order of acquittal. It is further argued that the applicant was required to raise necessary funds for preferring an application for leave to appeal. It is further argued that the State has also challenged the acquittal and the application for condonatio of delay of 193 days preferred on behalf of the State is allowed by this Court.

¶19

The Advocate appearing for the respondent/accused vehemently opposed the application by contending that the averments made in the application do not constitute sufficient cause. The reason given by the applicant is not sufficient for condoning the delay, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶20

Undisputedly, the State has also filed an application for leave to appeal in order to challenge acquittal of the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 376

2/3

Aarti Palkar

907.APPLN.277.17.doc

of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. The delay in preferring such application by the State is already condoned by this Court.

¶25

The applicant claims to be the victim of the crime in question. She could not prefer an application for leave to appeal in time as she was seeking legal advise and then she was raising funds for engaging the counsel and filing the appropriate application. This, in my opinion, constitutes sufficient cause. Hence, the order.

¶26

- : ORDER : -

¶27

I) The application is allowed.

¶28

II) The delay in filing an application for leave to appeal

¶29

is condoned.

¶30

III) The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(A.M.BADAR J.)

¶32

3/3

¶33

Aarti Palkar

Sangita Krishna Powar v. Laxman Bapu Mane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Krishna Powar v. Laxman Bapu Mane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Pramodbhai Shah and Ors.

M/S. Parle Sales Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Harish Datta and Anr.

Sudarshan Bhimarao Talekar Vs Vitthal Champalal Nabariya and Anr.

Mangesh Vithoba Chavan Vs Suhas Shrikrishna Deshpande and Anr.

Simran Shivkumar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra