Allowed

Jayant Laxmikant Chaupane v. Sandeep Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2019APL/601/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed criminal application for condonation of 160-day delay in filing a revision. Quashed Sessions Court order rejecting delay. Condoned delay subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 cost to Tata Cancer Institute for Children.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 160 days delay allowed; quashed impugned order; directed payment of Rs. 15,000 to Tata Cancer Institute for Children.

Jayant Laxmikant Chaupane Vs Sandeep Patil and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

apl.601.19.40.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 601 OF 2019

¶3

Jayant Laxmikant Chaupane ...Applicant Versus Sandeep Patil & Anr. ...Respondents

¶4

Mr. Amit Singh i/b Vivek Patil & Associates for the Applicant

¶5

Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/b M/s. Raj Legal for the Respondent No. 1 Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State

¶6

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 27th NOVEMBER 2019

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2 By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 10^th April 2019 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 557/2019 (delay condonation) filed in Criminal Revision Application, inasmuch as, the learned Sessions Court rejected the applicant’s application for condonation of delay caused in filing the aforesaid Revision Application.

¶10

3 Perused the papers. The respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint as against the applicant in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging offences punishable under

1/4

SQ Pathan

apl.601.19.40.doc

Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was numbered as complaint No. 01/SS/2018. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process vide order dated 19^th April 2018 as against the applicant. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant received summons on 20^th June 2018 i.e. after 61 days from the date of passing of the order of issue process. He submits that it is thereafter that the applicant started collecting documents and approached Advocates, resulting in a delay of 160 days in filing the Revision Application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 160 days caused in filing the Revision Application, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶15

4 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 disputes the statement that summons was received by the applicant in June 2018. Learned counsel relies on page 79 of the application to show that summons were delivered on the applicant on 11^th May 2018. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the said document on page 79 does not show that the said summons was delivered to the applicant.

¶16

5 A perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the applicant has, in detail, from para 2 to para 4, set out the reasons for

2/4

SQ Pathan

apl.601.19.40.doc

filing the Revision Application belatedly i.e. after 160 days. It appears that the reasons are plausible and are sufficient to condone the delay caused in filing the Revision Application. It appears that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and as such learned Sessions Judge ought to have condoned the delay filed in Revision Application.

¶21

6 For the reasons set out, the aforesaid application is allowed and the impugned order dated 10^th April 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge below Miscellaneous Application No. 557/2019 in Criminal Revision Application, is quashed and set-aside. The delay of 160 days caused in filing the aforesaid Revision Application is condoned, subject to the applicant paying cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Tata Cancer Institute for Children. The said cost to be paid on or before 16^th December 2019.

¶22

7 The Registry of the Sessions Court to register the Revision Application and the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the said Revision Application on its own merits. All contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶23

8 At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant states that the next date in the trial Court is 29^th November 2019 and the learned trial

3/4

SQ Pathan

apl.601.19.40.doc

Judge is insisting on proceeding with the said case. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that he will not proceed with the case and seek adjournment on 29^th November 2019.

¶28

9 The applicant to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 16^th December 2019, after which, the learned Judge to give dates convenient to him for hearing the Revision Application. The same to be decided expeditiously.

¶29

10 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶31

4/4

¶32

SQ Pathan

Jayant Laxmikant Chaupane v. Sandeep Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Laxmikant Chaupane v. Sandeep Patil 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

Sahaj Ram Kabra Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Tyagi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Shivchand Jakhete Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratik Vinod Shirgaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Prabhashankar Saboo Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haresh Dwarkadas Gandhi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.