Sayyed Zaquir Hussain And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.956 OF 2021 SAYYED ZAQUIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr.Bhargav B. Kulkarni h/f. Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.G.L. Deshpande, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J.

DATED :

02.12.2021 PC :- 01.

This petition takes exception to order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, below Exh.1 in Cri. (Delay) M.A. No.129 of 2018.

02.

The present petitioners were accused in RCC No.560/2008 on the file of JMFC, Ahmednagar. In the said case, the accused were tried for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 read with section

( 2 ) 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate by its judgment and order dated 19.01.2017 acquitted them of all the charges. The State has filed appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court. As there was delay in filing appeal, application for condonation of delay was filed. By the order impugned the said application filed by the State came to be allowed.

03.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the respondent/State.

04.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no explanation in the application for inordinate delay of 496 days. It is submitted that the appellate Court was thus not justified in condoning the delay.

05.

It appears that after decision of the Trial Court on 19.01.2017, the application was immediately made

( 3 ) for certified copy of the judgment on 21.01.2017. The certified copy of the judgment was made available on 10.02.2017. Thereafter, proposal was submitted to the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar for filing appeal on 23.02.2017. After scrutiny of the proposal, letter was sent to the office of the District Government Pleader on 26.06.2018 for filing appeal. Then appeal was filed in the month of July, 2018.

06.

Though there appears to be no explanation as to why the proposal was not expeditiously scrutinized and why it was kept pending for more than one year, however, considering the fact that it is first appeal and that too against acquittal for serious offence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. [N.R.BORKAR,J.] snk/2021/DEC21/crwp956.21