Allowed¶18

Shri Purushottam Babulal Kokode v. State of Maharashtra Thr Deolpar Police Station

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025APPA/441/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 582 days; criminal appeal against conviction; illiterate applicant; unaware of Court proceedings; not informed by Counsel; sole earning member; statutory right to prefer appeal; satisfactory reason; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Urmila Joshi-Phalke J.; Criminal Application APPA No.441 of 2025; Criminal Appeal Stamp No.4055 of 2025; Deolapar Police Station District Nagpur; victim non-applicant No.2; P. S. Lingayat appointed; APP N. B. Jawade; order dated 24/06/2025; application allowed and disposed; appeal admitted.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 582 days in preferring the appeal against conviction condoned; application disposed of, appeal directed to be registered and admitted. ¶18

Shri Purushottam Babulal Kokode Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Deolpar Police Station — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 582 days in preferring the appeal against conviction condoned; application disposed of, appeal directed to be registered and admitted.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 582 days caused in preferring the appeal against conviction ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 582 days in preferring the appeal against conviction is condoned.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Preferring an appeal is a statutory right, and the reasons shown by the applicant — that he is an illiterate person, not aware about the Court proceedings and law, that he was not informed by his Counsel, and that as the only earning member of the family he could not engage a Counsel — constitute a satisfactory reason, so the application deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Key takeaways

Criminal Appeal Stamp No.4055 of 2025 is admitted; after registration the learned APP waives notice for the State, Mr. P. S. Lingayat represents the victim non-applicant No.2, and the matter is to be placed for admission after registration of the appeal.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Criminal Application (APPA) No.441 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Stamp No.4055 of 2025, High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J., order dated 24/06/2025). The applicant, convicted and desiring to challenge the judgment of conviction, sought condonation of a 582-day delay in preferring the appeal, contending that being illiterate he was unaware of Court proceedings and law, was not informed by his Counsel, and as the only earning member of his family could not engage a Counsel. The State and non-applicant No.2 opposed, citing absence of satisfactory reason. Holding that preferring an appeal is a statutory right and that the reasons disclosed were satisfactory, the Judge allowed the application, condoned the delay of 582 days, directed registration of the appeal and admitted it; the learned APP waived notice for the State and Mr. P. S. Lingayat was appointed to represent non-applicant No.2, the victim.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6085

¶2

(1) 948.appa.441.2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.441 OF 2025 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.4055 OF 2025

¶6

Purushottam s/o. Babulal Kokode

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra, through Deolapar Police Station, District Nagpur and another

¶9

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Mr. P. J. Pandey, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. P. S. Lingayat, Counsel for the non-applicant No.2.

¶11

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 24/06/2025

¶12

By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay which is caused in preferring the appeal against conviction.

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the present applicant, being an illiterate person, was not aware about the Court proceedings and he was not informed by the Counsel for challenging the judgment of conviction and therefore, he could not file an appeal. Moreover, he is the only earning member in the family and, therefore, he could not engage the Counsel to prefer an appeal, therefore, the delay was caused.

¶14

(2) 948.appa.441.2025

¶15

The said application is strongly opposed by the State as well as the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.2 on the ground that there is no satisfactory reason for condonation of delay.

¶16

Heard both the sides. Perused the recitals of the application, being preferring an appeal is a statutory right and the reasons mentioned in the application that being he is an illiterate person, not aware about the Court proceeding and law, and he was not informed by his Counsel also, therefore, the delay was caused. There appears to be satisfactory reason. In view of that, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) The application is allowed.

¶19

(ii) Delay of 582 days is hereby condoned.

¶20

(iii) Appeal be registered.

¶21

The application is disposed of.

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.4055 OF 2025

¶23

(i) Heard.

¶24

(ii) Admit .

¶25

(iii) After registration of the appeal, learned APP waives notice for the State.

¶26

(iv) Learned Counsel Mr. P. S. Lingayat is hereby appointed to represent the non-applicant

¶27

(3) 948.appa.441.2025

¶28

No.2– victim, who is already served in the delay application.

¶29

(v) Place the matter for admission, after its registration.

¶30

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶31

Sarkate

Shri Purushottam Babulal Kokode v. State of Maharashtra Thr Deolpar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Purushottam Babulal Kokode v. State of Maharashtra Thr Deolpar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Alias Chintu S/O Suresh Nagachari Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Sitabuldi, Nagpur

Rupali Satish Thakre Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Lohara Yavatmal

Pravin S/O Pomeshwar Khapre and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadi, Nagpur, Nagpur

Sonal S/O, Sanjay Yerawar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Chamorshi, Gadchiroli

Avinash S/O Narayan Mahale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Khamgaon Rural Dist Buldhana

Mayur S/O Devakram Harinkhede Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Goregaon Tq Goregaon Dist Gondia