Smt. Jharna Wd/O Ranjit Prasad vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thorugh ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 553 Bom

                                          1                                            wp204.16




                                                                                   
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                           
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.204 OF 2016




                                                          
     Smt. Jharna wd/o Ranjit Prasad,
     Aged about 70 years, Occupation-Household,
     R/o Plot No.6, Mhaisalkar Layout, 




                                             
     Near Saibaba Mandir Square, Nagpur
     (Senior Citizen and Cancer patient)
                              ig                                    ....       PETITIONER


                            VERSUS
                            
     The State of Maharashtra, 
     through Police Station Officer, Police Station
      

     Sadar, Nagpur.                                                 ....       RESPONDENT
   



     ______________________________________________________________
                   Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for the petitioner, 
         Shri S.B. Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.





      ______________________________________________________________


                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 11 MARCH, 2016 th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for the petitioner and

Shri S.B. Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2 wp204.16

3. The respondent-State of Maharashtra has filed charge-

sheet against the petitioner (aged about 66 years), cognizance of

which is taken by the learned Magistrate by the order passed in

Regular Criminal Case no.674/2011, directing issuance of process for

offences punishable under Sections 199, 200, 406, 420 and 495 of the

Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner filed application praying that she be

discharged from the prosecution. This application came to be rejected

on 16-04-2012. The petitioner filed revision before the Sessions Court

challenging the above order. As there was delay of about 763 days in

filing the revision application, the petitioner filed application praying

for condonation of delay. This application is rejected by the impugned

order.

4. Shri Amit Khare, Advocate for the petitioner has pointed

out that the petitioner is suffering from Cancer since four to five years

and is required to go Chemotherapy and she was required to go out of

India for treatment. Though these facts are recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge in paragraph No.2 of the order, on pedantic view the

learned Sessions Judge has refused to condone the delay.

3 wp204.16

5. In view of the fact that the respondent is not disputing

that the petitioner is suffering from the ailment and looking to the

nature of ailment and the treatment which the petitioner is required to

undergo, the delay in filing the revision has to be condoned, the

impugned order is required to be set aside and the petitioner has to be

granted an opportunity to prosecute the revision application filed by

her on merits.

6. Hence, the following order :

              i)       The impugned order is set aside.  
      


              ii)      The application filed by the petitioner before the Sessions
   

Court praying for condonation of delay is allowed.

iii) The Sessions Court shall decide the revision application

filed by the petitioner on merits.

iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

pma