Sudhir M. Chaturvedi v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.386 of 2015 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.169 of 2013 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.387 of 2015 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.169 of 2013 Sudhir M. Chaturvedi ...
Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...
Respondents .....
Mr.Niranjan Mundartgi with Mr.Prasanna A. Bhangale, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms.Rebecca Gonsalves, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. ....
CORAM :
P. N. DESHMUKH J.
DATED :
24th AUGUST 2016.
P.C.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 325 days caused in filing application for restoration of Criminal Revision No.169 of 2013, which came to be dismissed for default by this Court on 25/09/2013. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after filing of this Revision, he was relying upon his advocate, however, as he could not receive any communication from his advocate, he tried to 1/3
contact him to know about the status of Revision Application. However, despite of his best efforts, he could not contact the advocate, and thus hired service of another advocate, from whom it was learnt that Revision Application was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further pointed out that since applicant could not contact his advocate on record, he was required to apply for obtaining certified copies of Revision Application, as well as, that of impugned order, and in that event, sufficient time had lapsed, thus causing delay, as aforesaid. It is, therefore, prayed that application be allowed in the interest of justice, otherwise he would be suffer irreparable loss as applicant is stated to have good case on merits.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the applicant on the count that delay is not satisfactorily explained, as according to her, in spite of applicant having knowledge of dismissal of Revision Application, had failed to take immediate steps by obtaining certified copies of the proceedings and filing present application. Having considering the facts, as aforesaid, it appears that the Revision Application came to be dismissed on 25/09/2013, while applicant on having knowledge of dismissal of his Revision Application applied for certified copies of the proceedings as well as of the impugned order on 30/05/2014 and the same were received on 20/08/2015. Thereafter, present application is filed on 30/08/2015. In that view of the matter, and considering the grounds put forth in paragraph 4 of the application, application is liable to be 2/3
allowed in the interest of justice, as there does not appear willful delay caused by applicant in filing this application. On the contrary, if application is not allowed, applicant will be deprived of his right to proceed with the case on merits. Application is allowed by imposing reasonable cost, as per order below :
(1) Criminal Revision Application No.386 of 2015 is allowed.
(2) Delay caused in filing Criminal Revision Application No.387 of 2013 is condoned subject to applicant's paying cost of Rs.5,000/-. Cost be paid within a week from today.
(3) On payment of cost, same be deposited with the State Legal Aid Authority.
(4) Criminal Revision Application No.169 of 2013 be restored on the file of this Court.
(5) Applicant to serve copy of Revision Application to respondent afresh.
(P. N. DESHMUKH J.) 3/3