Bombay High Court
Vilash Mahadev Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
4. APPR.242.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2018
IN
REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 247 OF 2018
Vilash Mahadev Patil (Gavade) ..... Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
........
Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar for the Applicant.
Ms Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.
DATE : 10 MARCH 2021.
P. C. :
. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 256
days for preferring the Criminal Revision Application against the judgment
and order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj,
Kolhapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2009. It is contended that the
Applicant along with four other persons were prosecuted for the ofences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 427 of Indian Penal Code (for
short "IPC") and 135 of Bombay Police Act. The Applicant was convicted
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class for the above ofences. The Applicant
was convicted and sentenced to pay fne of Rs. 500/- for the ofence
punishable under Section 143 of IPC, in default of which, he was directed to
sufer simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was convicted under Section
147 of IPC and sentenced to pay fne of Rs. 1000/- in default of which he
was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. Further, he was
R. V. Patil 1/4
4. APPR.242.2018.doc
convicted under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to pay fne of Rs.100/- in
default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 days. He
was also convicted for the ofence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and
sentenced to pay fne of Rs. 500/- in default, he was directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for 15 days. The Applicant has paid the amount of fne
as directed above.
2. The Applicant had preferred Appeal bearing No. 19 of 2009 before
the Additional Judge Sessions Court. During the pendency of the said
appeal, the Applicant was taking education. He lost his father in the year
2017. He made inquiry about the pendency of his appeal, but he came to
know that his lawyer A. R. Basarikatti passed away. Therefore, the
Applicant made an inquiry in the Court and came to know that his appeal
was dismissed on 8 May 2012. After knowing the dismissal of the appeal,
he applied for certifed copy of the judgment and order of the appeal.
Thereafter, he fled Criminal Revision Application along with the present
Criminal Application.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the
Respondent-State. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the
Applicant hails from poor family and he was completely independent on his
father, who died on 8th June 2017. The Applicant has completed his post-
graduation i/e M.A and B.Ed degree, but due to conviction order, he could
not secure job. It appears that the Applicant had preferred an appeal
against the judgment and order of trial Court. Further It appears that the
Counsel who was looking after the appeal on behalf of the Applicant also
R. V. Patil 2/4
4. APPR.242.2018.doc
passed away on 3 January 2013. The Applicant made an inquiry about the
pendency of his appeal, he came to know about its dismissal. On going
through the averments made in the Application it appears that, the Applicant
had not taken care to make an inquiry about the pendency of his appeal.
The Applicant lost his father as well as his Counsel. The Applicant must get
chance to challenge the order of First Appellate Court by way of revision.
The conviction order is blot on the career of the Applicant. He has
completed his post graduation so there is possibility of his getting job, but
due to the conviction order he cannot get a job as teacher or any other job.
To meet the ends of justice, the Applicant must get chance to prefer
Revision Application against the impugned order passed in Appeal No. 19
of 2009.
4. Learned APP submits that heavy cost be imposed on the Applicant
and said cost given to Police Welfare Fund Commissioner Ofce Mumbai.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is poor
and hails from agricultural family, therefore, reasonable cost be imposed on
the Applicant. Considering the status of the Applicant an amount of
Rs.10,000/- will be just and reasonable.
5. Application is allowed. The delay in preferring the Revision
Application against the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.
19 of 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, be condoned, subject
to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the Applicant. The Applicant is
directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- with Police Welfare Fund
Commissioner Ofce Mumbai, within a period of four weeks from today.
R. V. Patil 3/4
4. APPR.242.2018.doc
After the depositing costs, the Revision Application be registered.
6. Criminal Application is disposed of.
[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.]
R. V. Patil 4/4
