Bombay High Court
Namrata Bhosale (Intervener) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 November, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:50185
11-REVN-220-2013.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Chandramani Bhagwan More & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2013
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2013
Namrata Bhosale ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Chandramani Bhagwan More & Anr. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra in
REVN/220/2013.
Mr. Shreyansh Mithare a/w Anjali Anil Nimbkar, for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
None for the Applicant in APPR/259/2013.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 20 NOVEMBER 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Mulekar, learned APP for the Applicant-State of
Maharashtra and Mr. Mithare, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
11-REVN-220-2013.doc
2. The challenge in this Criminal Revision Application is to the
Order dated 23rd January 2013 passed by the learned District Judge-4
and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Misc. Application No.219 of
2010 ("impugned Order").
3. By the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2013 the learned
District Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay. The
said Misc. Application was filed for condonation of delay of 287 days in
filing an Appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned
JMFC in RCC No.967 of 2004 dated 4th February 2010.
4. It is the submission of Ms. Mulekar, learned APP, that the delay is
satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the application for condonation
of delay should have been allowed. On the other hand, Mr. Mithare,
learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, states that the
application for condonation of delay clearly shows that the incorrect
reasons are set out. He submits that the delay is of 321 days and not
287 days as contended. He further submits that, in any case, there is no
explanation even for condonation of delay of 287 days.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned 3rd Joint Judicial
Magistrate, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, by the Judgment and Order dated 4th
February 2010 passed in Regular Criminal Case No.967 of 2004, has
acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
11-REVN-220-2013.doc
Section 35 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
6. Perusal of the record shows that, inter alia, the following reasons
are given in the delay-condonation application :-
"The judgment was delivered on 04/02/10. The investigating
officer P.S.I. T. R. Bhagat who was attached to Crime Branch
Navi Mumbai then transferred on promotion to Mumbai and
thereafter he was not aware of the said judgment. He came to
know about the judgment on 05/05/10 and therefore he
contacted concerned A.P.P. of Vashi court. The Ld. A.P.P.
applied for certified copy of judgment before Ld. J.M.F.C.
Vashi. The certified copies of the judgment was received on
12/05/10 meanwhile A.P.I. Bhagat was on earned leave till
15/07/10. After resuming the duty he was continuously busy
in Ramzan Id, Ganpati Festival, Navratri Festival bandobast,
V.V.I.P. and Law and Order bandobast till Oct. 2010."
7. Thus, it is clear that even after getting knowledge of the
Judgment and receiving the certified copy on 12th May 2010, also there
is delay till October 2010 and till that time no action was taken and
thereafter the proposal was submitted.
8. Perusal of the record shows that a possible view of the matter has
been taken by the learned District Judge.
9. Apart from that, it is required to be noted that the said Regular
Criminal Case No.967 of 2004 was lodged on 18th December 2004 and
the same was decided on 4th February 2010. Therefore, 15 years have
passed after passing of the impugned Judgment and Order and the
Criminal Case is about 21 years old.
10. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out
for interference.
11-REVN-220-2013.doc
11. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, however with no
order as to costs.
12. As the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, nothing
survives in the Criminal Application No.259 of 2013 and the same is
also disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
