Abdul Aziz Mukadam And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

24-APPR-211-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.254 OF 2016 ABDUL AZIZ MUKADAM AND ORS.

)...APPLICANTS V/s.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

)...RESPONDENTS Mr.S.R.Phanse, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr.P.H.Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

A. M. BADAR, J.

DATE :

22nd MARCH 2017 P.C. :

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition challenging rejection of application for discharge moved by applicants / accused persons. Office endorsement shows that respondent no.2 / the first informant is duly served. However, none appeared for respondent no.2.

avk 1/2

24-APPR-211-2016.doc Heard the learned advocate appearing for applicants / original accused. He argued that orders sought to be impugned in the revision petition was initially challenged by filing a criminal writ petition but ultimately, it was revealed that proper remedy is filing of revision petition and therefore, the writ petition was withdrawn. This has occasioned delay in filing the revision petition.

The learned APP opposed the application.

Averments made in the application are on affidavit. Despite service, respondent no.2 is absent. It is seen that applicants were prosecuting their remedy but wrong proceedings were initiated by them. In this view of the matter, the time spent in prosecuting the criminal writ petition has resulted in delay which cannot be termed as laches. As such, the application is allowed.

The delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. (A. M. BADAR, J.) avk 2/2