Badrinath Sunil Shelke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra
2024 Latest Caselaw 6852 Bom

Bombay High Court

Badrinath Sunil Shelke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 2024

                                                  10-CriAppln-950-2024
                                 -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2024
                                 IN
           CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 2494 OF 2024
                                .....
            BADRINATH SUNIL SHELKE AND OTHERS
                              VERSUS
                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                .....
            Mr. N. B. Garje, Advocate for the Applicants.
            Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Respondent-State.
                                .....

                               CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                               DATED :     04 MARCH 2024

ORDER :

-

1. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in

preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2020

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case

No. 128 of 2018.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is

conviction for offence punishable under Section 342 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed,

thereby sentencing them rigorous imprisonment for six months. That,

accused so convicted, desire to question the said judgment. However,

there is delay of 1378 days. According to him, the delay is occasioned 10-CriAppln-950-2024

due to; firstly, clamping of COVID and secondly, weak financial

condition of the applicants and thirdly, time spent in engaging

another Advocate. He submits that the delay is not intentional and

deliberate. He prays to condone the delay.

3. Learned APP strongly opposes on the ground that firstly, delay

is huge and there is no proper explanation and secondly, there is no

supporting evidence with regard to case of weak financial condition.

4. After considering the above submissions and the contention

raised in para nos. 3 to 6 of the application, in the light of fair

opportunity, delay deserves to be condoned. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following order :

ORDER

I. Application is allowed.

II.    Delay stands condoned.

III.   Registry to register the appeal.




                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre