Allowed

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2018APPR/67/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court condoned the delay in preferring criminal revision applications challenging convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, attributing the delay to the applicant's custody since 2010, and allowed the applications to be heard on merits.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in preferring Criminal Revision Applications was granted, allowing the appellate proceedings to be heard on merits.

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rpa 1/2 923-appr-63-18-common.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2018 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)

¶4

¶5

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.77 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2018 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) IN

¶6

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.80 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2018 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)

¶7

¶8

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.81 OF 2018 WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.71 OF 2018 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)

¶10

¶11

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.82 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2018 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) IN

¶12

CRI. REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.83 OF 2018

¶13

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶14

Mr.Amey Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶15

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶16

DATED : AUGUST 10, 2018.

¶17

Digitally signed by Rajeshri Rajeshri Prakash Prakash Aher Aher Date: 2018.08.13 17:30:22 +0530

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

The applicant, by these applications is seeking condonation of delay in preferring Criminal Revision Application

¶20

rpa 2/2 923-appr-63-18-common.doc

¶21

challenging judgment and order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted that the applicant is in custody since 2010, as he was also involved in other cases pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted that on account of applicant being in custody, there was a delay in preferring these Revision Applications. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that there is no explanation for condonation of delay. The reply opposing the application for condonation of delay is filed by the respondents in all these applications. Considering the reasons assigned in the applications for condonation of delay and the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicant, the delay is required to be condoned by giving an opportunity to the applicant to decide the matters on merits of the case. In the circumstances, all the applications seeking condonation of delay are allowed.

¶22

2 All Criminal Applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Landlord Kanchan Madhusudan Vs Pravin Katvi and Anr.

Landlord Kanchan Madhusudan Vs Pravin Katvi

M/S. Raphael Motors and Anr. Vs M/S. Asarco Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Ed Process Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Manoj Panwar S/O Jailal Singh Panwar and Ors.

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryabhan Gayaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.