Allowed

Krushna Shantaram Kalbhor v. Noorjamal Nabilal Magdum and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Nov 2018APPLN/60/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for condonation of delay to challenge an acquittal under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC, the bench held that the applicant's lack of funds due to promised refunds by respondents constituted sufficient cause. The condonation of delay was allowed and the application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was condoned and the application was disposed of.

Krushna Shantaram Kalbhor Vs Noorjamal Nabilal Magdum… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

11-APPLN-60-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2018

¶5

KRUSHNA SHANTARAM KALBHOR )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

NOORJAMAL NABILAL MAGDUM AND ORS.)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Ashish Agarkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.D.D.Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 1^st NOVEMBER 2018

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring an application for leave to appeal seeking to challenge acquittal of respondents of the offfence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

avk 1/3

¶15

11-APPLN-60-2018.doc

¶16

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

applicant/original complainant. He argued that after acquittal, the respondents after getting knowledge of moving an application for leave to appeal, had promised and assured to refund the amount and the applicant/original complainant succumbed to the allurements of the respondents. It is further argued that the applicant/original complainant was not having necessary funds for approaching this court, and therefore, the delay has occasioned.

¶18

3 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the applicant/original complainant is bereft of details, and as such, it cannot be said that the applicant/original complainant was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the application within limitation.

¶19

4 I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

¶20

application for condonation of delay is on affirmation and averments therein are not countered by filing counter affidavit. Duly sworn testimony of the applicant/original complainant shows

¶21

avk 2/3

¶22

11-APPLN-60-2018.doc

¶23

that the respondents had given assurance and promise of refund of the amount. It is also averred that arrangement of funds was to be made. These grounds constitute sufficient cause, and therefore, the order :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) The delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned.

¶26

ii) The application is accordingly disposed off.

¶27

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶28

avk 3/3

Krushna Shantaram Kalbhor v. Noorjamal Nabilal Magdum and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krushna Shantaram Kalbhor v. Noorjamal Nabilal Magdum and Ors.

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

Raju Ratansing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rubina Siraj Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Bohra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Nirmal Rajbhihari Trivedi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Sanjay Amate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Sanjay Amate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra