Bombay High Court
Bhushan Shamrao Bharsakale And Others vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps ... on 17 January, 2024
Author: M. W. Chandwani
Bench: M. W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:814
1 apl1477.23.J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1477 OF 2023
1. Bhushan Shamrao Bharsakale
Aged 21 years, Occu. Labourer
R/o Talagaon, Tq. Telhara,
Dist. Akola.
2. Gajanan Pralhadrao Harsule
Aged 53 years, Occu. Farmer
R/o Lakhpuri, Tq. Murtijapur,
Dist. Akola.
3. Anil Pralhadrao Harsule
Aged 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Lakhpur, Tq. Murtijapur,
Dist. Akola.
4. Sunil Pralhadrao Harsule
Aged 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Lakhpur, Tq. Murtijapur,
Dist. Akola. ....... APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra
through PSO Police Station
Murtijapur, District Akola. ....... NON-APPLICANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. Bawane, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for Non-Applicant/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE: 17th JANUARY, 2024.
2 apl1477.23.J.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Issue notice, returnable forthwith.
3. Mr. A. M. Kadukar, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of notice for the non-applicant/State.
4. The order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Akola thereby rejecting the application
for condonation of delay in preferring the revision has been
challenged in this petition.
5. The applicants have been charge-sheeted by Police
Station Murtizapur (Gramin) for offence punishable under
Sections 326, 324, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code vide Regular Criminal Case No.134/2022 before the
learned J.M.F.C., Murtizapur. On 16.2.2023 the learned J.M.F.C.,
Murtizapur framed charge against the applicants for aforesaid
offences.The applicants wanted to challenge the framing of charge
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, there was
delay in preferring the revision therefore, the application for
condonation of delay came to be filed before the learned
3 apl1477.23.J.odt
Additional Sessions Judge which came to be rejected by the
impugned order.
6. The period of limitation for filing the revision is 90 days.
The charge has been framed on 16.02.2023. The time to file
revision expired on 15.05.2023, whereas the application for
condonation of delay has been moved on 31.06.2023. It appears
that there was delay of 35 days in preferring the revision before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The reason for rejection is
that the applicant did not explain the delay after getting certified
copies of the order.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants submit that in
para 4 the applicants have mentioned that after the receipt of
certified copy they contacted their counsel to take steps and
handed-over copy to their counsel. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that for preparing application and
presenting the same, it took time. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge took pedantic approach and on technical reason, the
substantial justice has been denied to the applicants. To buttress
the submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others
reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 wherein the Apex Court has held
4 apl1477.23.J.odt
in para 3:
3. "Every day's delay must be explained"
does not mean that a pedantic approach should
be made. Why not every hour's delay, every
second's delay? The doctrine must be applied
in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other,
cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot claim to
have vested right in injustice being done
because of a non-deliberate delay.
8. No doubt, the applicants have not given details of
each day after handing over certified copy to the Advocate but
broadly pleaded that the applicants had instructed to their counsel
to take steps and handed over certified copy. In the application
before this Court they have contended on oath that though they
had requested the counsel to file application but, he filed it only
on 21st June, 2023. The delay is of only 35 days, which does not
appears to be intentional one, coupled with the fact that no
prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant if delay is
condoned. Substantial justice cannot be denied on technical
reason. Hence, this order.
9. The application is allowed.
5 apl1477.23.J.odt
10. The impugned order dated 26.07.2023 rejecting the
application for condonation of delay of the applicants is quashed
and set aside.
11. The delay of 35 days in preferring the revision
application is condoned.
12. In the aforesaid terms the application is disposed of.
JUDGE
NSN
