Rajendra Namdeorao Kathale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11157 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11157 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2021

Bombay High Court

Rajendra Namdeorao Kathale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 17 August, 2021

Bench: V. G. Joshi

                                             1                                      18 apeal 480.2012

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 1095 OF 2019

                                     Shrikant s/o Bhanudas Niwal
                                                 ..vs..
                                   Somraj s/o Deepak Paul and anr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                  Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                None present for applicant.
                                Learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.2-State.



                                          CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : 17/08/2021

None present for the applicant.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 355 days caused in filing application seeking leave to challenge the order of acquittal passed in Summary Criminal Case No.2205 of 2018 by the Trial Court vide it's judgment and order dated 01.11.2018.

3. Initially vide order dated 08.01.2021, this Court has issued a notice to respondent no. 1 (acquitted accused) however, despite repeated reminders, till date, the applicant has not provided correct address of respondent no.1. The record indicates that respondent no. 1 is the resident of State of Assam.

4. It is seen from various orders of this Court

2 18 apeal 480.2012

that, time and again, the applicant was reminded to take steps, but he failed. A reasonable inference can be drawn that the applicant is not interested in the proceeding, hence, the applicant stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

JUDGE Trupti