Bombay High Court
Shri. Sadashiv Krishna Mane ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 September, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 4 03-ia-2082-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2082 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2083 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2002
Sadashiv Krishna Mane (since deceased)
through Sunita Sadashiv Mane ..Applicant.
In the matter between:
Sadashiv Krishna Mane & Ors. ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir for Applicant.
Smt. Racheeta R. Dhuru for Original Appellant in
Apeal/941/2002.
Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER 2022
PC :
1. The applicant herein is widow of the original Appellant
No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2002. The original Appellant
No.1 was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune in Sessions Case No.8 of 1998 for commission of offence
Digitally
signed by
VINOD punishable U/s.304(II) r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced to
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.09.14
10:56:37 Gokhale
+0530
2 of 4 03-ia-2082-22
suffer R.I. for 3 years. He was also convicted for commission of
offence punishable U/s.331 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to
suffer R.I. for 3 years. The impugned Judgment and order was
passed on 05/08/2002. After that order the original appellant
No.1 was dismissed from the service. He preferred Criminal Appeal
No.941 of 2002 against the impugned Judgment and order which
is still pending before the Court.
2. It is mentioned in the application and it is submitted by
learned counsel for the applicant that the original Appellant No.1
Sadashiv Krishna Mane had expired on 08/11/2014. The applicant
was not aware of her legal rights to continue with the appeal. Even
the State was not aware of this fact and, therefore, no formal order
of abatement of the appeal was passed. The applicant was under
the impression that after the death of her husband nothing further
survives in the matter. In June 2022, her son came in contact with
an advocate who made them aware of their right to continue with
the appeal and thereafter this application to continue with the
appeal as legal heir of the appellant No.1 was filed.
3 of 4 03-ia-2082-22
3. Learned APP opposed this application on the ground that
the delay is inordinate.
4. In this process many years have passed and there is
delay of 7 years and 204 days in filing application for continuing
with the appeal on behalf of the appellant No.1. The submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant and the averments
made in the application appear to be genuine. There was no
reason for the applicant to know about her legal right. Though,
this cannot be an excuse for not approaching the Court, but a
sympathetic view can be taken in this matter. The appeal is not yet
decided. The appeal is preferred by other accused along with the
original Appellant No.1 and, therefore, the Court will consider
entire evidence. Therefore, there will be no harm caused either to
the State or to anybody else, if the applicant is permitted to
continue with the appeal on behalf of the Appellant No.1.
5. In this view of the matter, the delay, though it is quite
inordinate, can be condoned in the interest of justice and the
Appeal can be decided on merits of the matter.
4 of 4 03-ia-2082-22
6. Hence, the order:
ORDER
a) The delay of 7 years and 204 days in preferring
Interim Application No.2083 of 2022 is condoned.
b) The Interim Application No.2082 of 2022 is
disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
