Allowed

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and Another

Bombay HC10 Aug 2021APPA/106/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Nagpur allowed an application to condone a 284-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against an acquittal. The court noted an error in the cause title and ordered the appeal to be registered.

What did the court decide?

The delay in filing the appeal against acquittal was condoned and the appeal was directed to be registered.

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

5 APPA 106.2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 106 OF 2021
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021

¶6

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and anr

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________
appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Shri B.L. Borikar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.

¶11

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 10^th AUGUST, 2021.

¶12

1.At the outset, Shri B.L. Borikar, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that there is a petty mistake in the cause
title of the application and wrongly it is stated as “Claim
Petition”, it should be “Criminal Appeal”.

¶13

Oral prayer for amendment is allowed. Amendment
be carried out forthwith.

¶14

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal challenging the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mehkar, District Buldhana in Sessions Trial No.145 of 2019,
whereby the learned Judge acquitted the non applicant No.2 of
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

¶15

¶16

5 APPA 106.2021

¶17

3.Shri Borikar, submits that there is delay of 284 days,
in filing the appeal on behalf of the original complainant.

¶18

4. Notices on this application were issued on 15.02.2021.

¶19

5.Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the non-applicant No.1/
State.

¶20

6.The non-applicant No.2 is duly served. On behalf of
the non-applicant No.2 Shri S.V. Sirpurkar has filed his
Vakalatnama. He submits that he has no objection in allowing
this application.

¶21

His statement is accepted.

¶22

7.The delay in filing the appeal against acquittal
stands condoned. Office to Register the appeal.

¶23

8.The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.

¶24

JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

C.L.Dhakate

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Sahebrao Lahane v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer, Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and Another

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

Vaibhav S/O Kailas Raut Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Deolapar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Dharmendra S/O Sopan Kamble Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Dongaon Dist.Buldhana

Rajesh S/O. Shravan Rangari Vs Vinod S/O. Bhaurao Pande and 2 Others

Shyamgir S/O Kishorgir Giri and 4 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Daryapur, Distamravati

Bharat S/O Vishnu Devkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary Home Deparment, Mantralya, Mumbai and 2 Others

Pawan @ Sandip Omprakash Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Barshitakli Dist.Akola and Another