Shantaram @ Shantilal S/O. Chaitram Patil v. Central Bureaue Of Investigatioan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 117 OF 2025 Shantaram @ Shantilal s/o Chaitram Patil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. R.S. Akbani, counsel for applicant.

Mr. Prashantkumar Sathianathan, counsel for non-applicant. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 21 /08/2025.

1.

Heard.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay, which is caused in preferring the revision.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has filed the instant criminal revision application challenging the order dated 11/12/2023 passed in Special Criminal M.A. No. 03/2015, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to accept the 'C' summary filed by the non-applicant in the prosecution initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the applicant.

4.

It is submitted that delay is caused in filing the application, as the applicant was not aware about the order passed by the Court. He was suffering from health issues and therefore, he could not attend the

court proceedings therefore, he was not aware about the passing of the orders.

5.

Learned Special Prosecutor for the CBI strongly opposed for the same on the ground that there are no reasonable and justifiable reasons for the condonation of delay, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

6.

On hearing both sides and on perusal of the application, the grievance of the complainant is that he was not heard before passing an order on the said 'C' Summary report, and therefore, his right is violated and therefore, he has challenged the said order. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, it is clear that the complainant ought to have been heard regarding the 'C' Summary report before passing an order. The reasons mentioned in the application appears to be just and reasonable. Moreover, considering the application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is to be adopted, and a pedantic approach is not to be appreciated. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

a] The criminal application is allowed.

b] The delay of 380 days in filing the revision application is condoned. The revision application be registered.

c] On registration of the revision, notice be issued to non-applicant.

7.

Stand over after four weeks.

[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]