Sumit Bhimrao Shirsat (In Jail) v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, P.S. Khadan Akola

0512appa754.16 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.754 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016 (Sumit Bhimrao Shirsat vs. The State of Maharashtra) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri S.I. Jagirdar, Advocate for applicant.

Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

----- CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 05, 2016 Issue notice to respondent.

Shri Jawade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 350 days in preferring appeal against the judgment dated 6/10/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola whereby applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months as also for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The ground put forth by applicant for

0512appa754.16 2/2 condonation of delay is his poor financial condition, due to which he could not prefer appeal within stipulated period.

For the grounds mentioned in para no.6 of the application and in view of settled legal position that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated, as against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties and also that, "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner as per established legal principles. Application is, therefore, liable to be allowed in the interest of justice.

The delay caused in preferring appeal is condoned. The application is thus allowed. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016 Heard learned Counsel for both sides.

Admit.

Call R & P.

JUDGE khj