Bombay High Court
Dineshkumar Govind Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 09-IA-3104-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3104 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.15443 OF 2022
Dineshkumar Govind Yadav .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Mohansinh U. Rajput, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 18th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. The Applicant was convicted by the Special Judge
under POCSO, Greater Mumbai, vide his Judgment and Order
dated 30/08/2019 passed in POCSO Special Case No.378 of
2015. The Applicant was convicted for commission of offence
punishable u/s 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 and
8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2022.10.21
10:59:49
+0530
This application is for condonation of delay of 2 years and 316
days in filing the Appeal.
Nesarikar
2/4 09-IA-3104-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant invited my attention
to the letter dated 20/10/2019, which is at Ex.A of this
application, which mentions that the Applicant's financial
condition was very poor and he was unable to engage a private
advocate.
3. This letter was addressed to the registry of this Court.
Pursuant to that letter Mr. Mohansinh U. Rajput, was appointed
by the Legal Services Authority of this Court in July 2022. After
that the papers were collected. He prepared the Appeal and
therefore there is delay of 2 years and 316 days.
4. He submitted that the Applicant is in custody since
28/05/2015 and therefore he was unable to take effective steps
in preferring the Appeal.
5. Considering all these submissions, the Applicant has
made out the case for condonation of delay in preferring the
Appeal. However, the record shows that the Applicant had
3/4 09-IA-3104-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt
already requested for appointment of an advocate and had sent
a letter in the year 2019 itself. It was unnecessarily kept pending
for about more than 2 ½ years. This definitely causes prejudice
to such prisoners. Therefore, Legal Services Authority of this
Court, is requested to look into this aspect of the matter and to
take review all these applications which are pending with them
with the co-ordination with the registry of this Court, so that the
Appeals are preferred expeditiously.
6. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The delay of 2 years and 316 days in preferring
Appeal is condoned.
(ii) The Appeal be processed further.
(iii) The Legal Services Authority of this Court is
requested to take review of such pending cases,
where the Advocates are not yet appointed. They
can co-ordinate with the Registry of this Court.
4/4 09-IA-3104-22-IN-APEAL-ST-15443-22.odt
(iv) The Appeal be listed in the category of Appeals
from 2019 instead of Appeals from 2022.
(v) A copy of this order be sent to Legal Services
Authority and the Registry of this Court.
(vi) Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
