Yagnaprasad Amritlal Acharya v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

16. Apeal 858 of 2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2023 Yagnaprasad Amritlal Acharya ...Appellant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

***** Shri Aniket Ujjwal Nikam, Shri Aashish Satpute - Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM :

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

06th FEBRUARY, 2024 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate Shri Nikam for the AppellantComplainant and learned App. 2.

On the complaint filed before the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Junior Engineer of the MCGM lodged the F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 53 (1)(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Police filed charge-sheet, after trial, Court of the JMFC acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 53 (1)(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The Appellant intends to challenge this judgment by way of an appeal.

Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2024.02.12 11:17:25 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Seema 1/2

16. Apeal 858 of 2023.doc 3.

Learned Advocate Shri Nikam fairly admits that this appeal will lie before the Court of the Sessions. He made following two submissions:- a) If the State could have preferred an appeal as per provision of Section 378 (1)(a), the appeal ought to have been filed before the Court of Sessions.

b) If the accused would have been convicted, appeal could have been maintainable before the Court of Sessions. c) If the victim wants to prefer an appeal as per proviso of Section 372 of the Court, the appeal lies before the Court before whom ordinarily appeal against conviction lies. 4.

In view of the above submissions, the appeal before this Court will not be maintainable. He prays for condonation of delay caused in prosecuting this proceedings. Hence the Order:-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is disposed of as not maintainable.

(ii) Liberty granted to the Appellant to approach the Court of Sessions Greater Mumbai.

(iii) The Applicant is at liberty to pray for condonation of delay caused in prosecuting this appeal and it may be considered positively.

[S. M. MODAK, J.] Seema 2/2