Bombay High Court
Sambhaji Vitthal Devkate vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:34577
Sonali Mane 31-APEAL(ST)-15855-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 15855 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3162 OF 2024
Sambhaji Vitthal Devkate ... Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr ... Respondents
Mr. Aditya R. Parmar for the Appellant.
Ms. Rashmi S. Tendulkar,, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 27 AUGUST 2024.
P.C. :
1) The Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of
delay of 261 days in filing the Appeal for challenging the Order dated
1 August 2023 passed by the learned District Judge-2 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Baramati. By Order dated 1 August 2023, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the Application filed by the
Applicant for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973.
___Page No.1 of 3___
27 August 2024
Sonali Mane 31-APEAL(ST)-15855-2024.docx
2) Perusal of the averments in the Interim Application would
indicate that following justification is put forth for seeking condonation
of delay of 261 days.
"6. It is submitted by accused that the accused was not aware of the
procedures and remedies available to him, therefore there is a delay of
261 days in filing an Appeal."
3) Thus, there is absolutely no justification for seeking
condonation of inordinate delay of 261 days in filing the Appeal. Lack of
knowledge about procedures and remedies available to the Applicant
cannot be a reason for condoning inordinate delay of 261 days. The
Applicant is advised by an Advocate who has appeared for him before
the Trial Court for prosecuting the discharge application and therefore
it cannot be contended that there is absolute lack of knowledge about
procedure and remedies available to the Applicant. Even otherwise, the
sessions case is registered in the year 2015 and has been pending for
the last 9 long years.
4) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my
view, this is not a fit case for condonation of inordinate delay of 261
days.
5) The learned counsel for the Applicant would rely on Order
passed by the Apex Court in Ghulam Rasool Khan and Others Vs.
State of U. P. and Others Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2018 decided
on 28 July 2022. In that order, the Apex Court has made reference to
its judgment In Re : Provision of Section 14 (a) of the SC/ST Act
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. What is set aside by
___Page No.2 of 3___
27 August 2024
Sonali Mane 31-APEAL(ST)-15855-2024.docx
the Apex Court is only the part of sub Section (3) of Section 14A, which
prevents the Court from entertaining an Appeal on expiry period of 180
days. Thus, the Court is empowered to entertain the Appeal even if the
delay exceeds 180 days. It therefore cannot be contended that no period
of limitation is prescribed for filing Appeal under Section 14A(1) of the
Act.
6) For condoning delay, necessary justification is required to
be pleaded and proved before the Court. In the present case, the
Applicant has failed to plead any justifiable reason for condonation of
delay of 261 days. I am therefore not inclined to condone the delay in
filing the Appeal. Interim Application is accordingly rejected. On
account of rejection of Interim Application, nothing would survive in
the Criminal Appeal which also stands disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.3 of 3___
27 August 2024
