Dadan Chhotelal Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 9665 Bom

                                                                       11. REVN.143-2021.doc


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2021

            Dadan Chotelal Yadav                                 ...Applicant
                Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                             ...Respondent
            Mr. Ashokvardhan Purohit for the Applicant.

            Mr. A.R.Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.


                                            CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 23rd JULY, 2021 (Through Video Conferencing) P.C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP

for the State.

2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated

21st November, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City

Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, below Miscellaneous

Application No.1034 of 2016 (for condonation of delay) in Criminal Appeal

No.---/2016, by which the applicant's application seeking condonation of

delay of 7 days in filing the appeal was rejected.

Wakodikar                                                                                        1/4




                                                                         11. REVN.143-2021.doc

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant vide

Judgment and Order dated 3rd March, 2016 passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, 62nd Court, Dadar, Mumbai in

C.C.No.580/PW/2010, was convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

4. The said Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence was

challenged by the applicant in appeal, in the Sessions Court. Alongwith the

appeal, the applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 1035 of 2016

(for suspension of sentence) and another Miscellaneous Application No.

1034 of 2016 (for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal). It

appears that inadvertently, the learned Sessions Judge without condoning

the delay of 7 days i.e. without deciding the Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. 1034 of 2016, proceeded to admit the appeal vide order

dated 27th April, 2016 and vide order dated 27th April, 2016, released the

applicant on bail. The said order was passed in Criminal Bail Application

No. 905 of 2016.

5. It appears that subsequently, the delay condonation application

Wakodikar 2/4

11. REVN.143-2021.doc

was placed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge

after observing that the Advocate of the applicant and the applicant were

absent for a long time and that they had not taken any steps to argue the

matter, rejected the said application i.e. Miscellaneous Application No.

1034 of 2016 filed for condonation of delay of 7 days caused in filing the

appeal and vacated the interim relief.

6. First and foremost, the learned Judge could not have admitted

the appeal, without condoning the delay. Be that as it may, once having

admitted the appeal, the learned Judge ought to have condoned the delay of

seven days in filing the appeal.

7. Considering the aforesaid, in the interest of justice, the

application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21 st November, 2017,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1034 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal

No. --/2016 in C.C.No. 580/PW/2010 is quashed and set aside and the delay

of 7 days caused in filing the said appeal, is condoned.

8. The interim relief granted earlier i.e. the orders dated 27th April,

2016 admitting the appeal as well as granting bail to the applicant are

Wakodikar 3/4

11. REVN.143-2021.doc

restored.

9. The Registry of the Sessions Court is directed to number the

appeal.

10. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant will

take all steps to remain present before the Appellate Court either personally

or through his Advocate; and that he will co-operate with the learned

Sessions Judge in the final disposal of his appeal which is pending.

Statement accepted.

11. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of on the

aforesaid terms.

12. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Wakodikar                                                                                         4/4