Allowed

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Mar 2019WP/362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged a single-day order rejecting an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, imposed due to the petitioner's failure to deposit costs. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the lower appellate court to register and decide the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting condonation of delay was set aside; the petitioner was permitted to deposit Rs. 2,500 within one week; the criminal appeal was directed to be registered and decided.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 920 CrWP 362-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 362 OF 2019

¶4

Namdev Vishnu Shelke,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Kadwanchi, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Taluka Jalna Police
Station,

¶8

Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

.......

¶11

Mr. Suvidh S.Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.P.Sonpawale, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶12

.......

¶13

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶14

 DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2019

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶17

heard finally by consent of both the parties.

¶18

02.Heard the learned Counsel for the

¶19

petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶20

03.The present petitioner was shown as
accused No. 5 in the R.C.C. No. 533 of 2013 tried in
the Court of learned 4th Jt. J.M.F.C. Jalna. By the

¶21

2 920 CrWP 362-2019

¶22

Judgment dated 22.8.2016, the learned Magistrate
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Sections 147, 323 read with 149 of the I.P.C.
and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days
and also convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable U/s 147 of the I.P.C. and directed to pay
fine of Rs. 700/- each in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable
under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the
I.P.C.

¶23

04.After said Judgment of conviction, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Jalna. However, the said appeal was
barred by limitation. Therefore, an application U/s
5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The said
application was registered as Cri.M.A.No. 65/2017.
The learned Appellate Court exercised its discretion
in favour of the present petitioner and condoned the
delay on a condition that the petitioner should
deposit Rs.2,500/- by way of costs within a period
of 15 days. Failing which, the Court observed that
it will be treated as rejection of application of
condonation of delay.

¶24

3 920 CrWP 362-2019

¶25

05.It appears that within the stipulated

¶26

period, the petitioner could not deposit the costs
of Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, on 24.1.2019 the

¶27

application was moved for payment of costs of Rs.
2,500/-. However, the said application was rejected
on 24.1.2019 itself. The said order is under
challenge.

¶28

06.No doubt, the petitioner could not deposit
Rs. 2,500/- within the stipulated period, however,
once the Appellate Court had exercised its
discretion of condoning the delay, the Appellate
Court ought to have granted permission to deposit
Rs. 2,500/-. Even otherwise, the substantive
justice should not be denied to any litigant for
non-payment of costs.

¶29

07.In that view of the matter, I pass the

¶30

following Order;

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i)Writ Petition is allowed.

¶33

(ii)The Order dated 24.1.2019 passed by the

¶34

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna
is hereby set aside.

¶35

(iii)The petitioner is permitted to deposit

¶36

4 920 CrWP 362-2019

¶37

the amount of Rs.2,500/- in the lower

¶38

Appellate Court within a period of one
week from today.

¶39

(iv)Criminal Misc. Application No. 65/2017

¶40

filed by the petitioner/applicant for
condonation of delay stands allowed.

¶41

(v)The appellate Court is directed to
register the criminal appeal and decide
the same in accordance with law.

¶42

(vi)With this, writ petition is allowed and

¶43

disposed of.

¶44

Dahibhate/-

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Shivaji Kadu Chinchole Vs Champalal Bhagwan Borse and Ors.

M/S. Jark Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar through Its Manager Sagar Singhal S/O. Vedprakash Singhal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harun Khan Jarwar Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.