Bombay High Court
Satish S/O Ramesh Channe vs Smt. Sangita Satish Channe And ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
Judgment 1 APL No.124/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.124 OF 2016
Applicant : Satish s/o Ramesh Channe,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation : Labourer,
R/o Khandala (Khurd), Post Ladegaon,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur.
ig -- Versus --
Non-Applicants : 1] Smt. Sangita Satish Channe
Aged about 24 years, Occupation : Business.
2] Sevika Satish Channe,
Aged about 1½ year - minor,
through mother guardian Respondent No.1.
Both r/o, C/o Moreshwar Laxman Charde,
Dodkepani, Tahsil Katol, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri R.V. Gillurkar, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri P.S. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Non-Applicants
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 2
nd AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties.
Judgment 2 APL No.124/2016
02] By this application, the legality and correctness of the order
dated 16/01/2016 has been challenged by the applicant. According to the
learned Counsel for the applicant, the burden to prove that there was
sufficient cause in not preferring the revision application before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur within time has been wrongly placed upon
the applicant. He invites my attention to paragraph 11 of the impugned
order. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is bad in law.
03] The learned Counsel for the non-applicants submits that the
impugned order is a well reasoned order and since the applicant failed to
demonstrate any sufficient cause, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
rightly dismissed the application.
04] On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is a great
substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the non-applicants and
no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant. This
applicant had contended that there were some circumstances, which
prevented him from approaching the Court of law well in time. When this
applicant had approached the Court with a specific case, the burden to prove
his case naturally was upon him and not on the other side, as sought to be
canvassed on his behalf by the learned Counsel for the applicant. This burden
Judgment 3 APL No.124/2016
was not discharged by the applicant. The applicant had also admitted that he
had received the notice of the proceedings after which he had engaged the
Counsel for defending himself. But, thereafter, as to why the applicant has
failed to contest the trial was not explained by him. Therefore, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that no sufficient cause was
demonstrated by this applicant.
05] In the result, I see no illegality or any perversity in the impugned
order. The application deserves to be dismissed. The application stands
dismissed.
JUDGE
*waghmare
Judgment 4 APL No.124/2016
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 08/08/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
