Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Tarachand Borkar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 26 July, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cwp871.15.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.871 OF 2015
Sunil s/o. Tarachand Borkar,
Aged 44 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Surabardi (Takiya),
Police Station Wadi, Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wadi, Distt. Nagpur.
2. Tukaram s/o. Sharad Deotale,
Aged 49 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Plot No.36(A), Surabardi (Takiya),
Police Station Wadi, Distt. Nagpur.
3. Ganesh s/o. Tukaram Deotale,
Aged 24 years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o. Plot No.36(A), Surabardi (Takiya),
Police Station Wadi, Distt. Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Aakash Sarda, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Non-Applicants.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 26
JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
J-cwp871.15.odt 2/4
2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
3. It is seen from the impugned order dated 12.8.2015 that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone too much into the
technicalities of the matter, and accordingly taken a view that no
sufficient cause for condonation of delay have been shown in this case. It
appears to me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ignored the
fact that the explanation which has been given in the application filed for
condonation of delay by the petitioner was supported by the solemn
affirmation, whereas reply of the prosecution which was in the nature of
denial in toto, was not so supported. The reply only put forward a
simple case of denial. It also did not deal with the aspect as to whether
or not prosecution had applied it's mind to the judgment of trial Court
and took a decision to file appeal or otherwise. When, the explanation
given by the petitioner on oath has not been denied by another
explanation given on oath by the prosecution, there is no reason for the
Court to reject the explanation. At least such an explanation ought to
have been seen as showing bonafides on the part of the petitioner in the
sense that the petitioner did make his efforts to see that justice was
ultimately done. This has not been considered at all by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and so I am of the view that the order
impugned in this case cannot be sustained in law. There being no
malafides shown on the part of the petitioner, I am of the further view
J-cwp871.15.odt 3/4
that the condonation of delay application deserves to be allowed. In the
circumstances, this writ petition would have be allowed.
4. The writ petition stands allowed.
5. The impugned order dated 12.8.2015, passed by the District
Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set
aside.
6. The condonation of delay application stands allowed and the
delay occurred in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
The appeal shall be registered and dealt with by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible.
8. The parties to appear before the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur on 22nd August, 2016.
9. Rule is made absolute in these terms.
JUDGE
okMksns
J-cwp871.15.odt 0/4
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : D.W. Wadode, P.A.
Uploaded on : 27.7.2016.
