The State Of Maharashtra v. Rajkumar Narayan Swami And Another
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3692 OF 2014 IN APPLN/3691/2014 WITH APPLN/3691/2014 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
RAJKUMAR NARAYAN SWAMI AND ANOTHER ...
APP for Applicant / State : Mr.M.M. Nerlekar. Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr.Anil H. Kasliwal (Jain). Respondent No.2 Served.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
Dated: JULY 22, 2015 ...
This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 21 days caused in filing appeal. The learned APP appearing for the State invited our attention to the contents of the application and submits that, in the interest of justice, delay deserves to be condoned.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused submits that no specific reasons are given in the application. Merely because the applicant / appellant was overburdened, is no ground for condoning the delay. In support of this contention,
learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another1, and in particular, paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof.
We have heard learned APP for the applicant / State and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, perused the contents of the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of only 21 days caused in filing appeal against order of acquittal of the accused. In our opinion, in case delay is not condoned, the ultimately sufferer will be the complainant and the society at large. The legislators have made available right of appeal to the original complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Though the complainant is not before this Court but, on interpretation of provisions of section 372 of Cr.P.C., this Court in case of Mohd. Azim Sheikh Ibrahim & Ors. vs.
Mehamuda Anjum Mohd. Azim & anr.2, has taken a view that, no period of limitation is provided for appeals which are made permissible under proviso of section 372 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the provisions of section 372 of Cr.P.C. and exposition of this Court in case of Mohd. Azim Sheikh Ibrahim (supra), we are inclined to AIR 1998 SC 2276;
2015(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 733;
condone the delay.
In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), there was delay of 565 days in filing appeal, which was not satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the present case is distinguishable on facts vis-a-vis the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra).
For the aforesaid reasons, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and stands disposed of.
List the Criminal Application No.3691 of 2014 for hearing on 4th August, 2015.
(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/