Bombay High Court
Devidas S/O. Govindrao Kirpane vs Dr. Abhay S/O. Balkrishna Makode on 5 September, 2024
1 appa471.23.O.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.471 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.3218 OF 2023
(Devidas s/o Govindrao Kirpane Vs. Dr. Abhay s/o Balkrishna Makode)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Chauhan, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate for Non-Applicant.
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATE: 5th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
1. Heard.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 223 days which is caused in preferring the appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, he submitted that the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned District Judge-8, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.319/2020 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the non-applicant by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed dated 27.10.2010 passed by the 5th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in SCC No.122/2005 and acquitted the non-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The earlier counsel appearing for the applicant before the learned trial court 2 appa471.23.O.odt had not handed over the copies of the original document to the applicant, and therefore, the appeal could not be preferred and filed within the time. It is further submitted that the delay is caused which is not intentional one and for the sufficient and satisfactory reasons. It is further submitted that the applicant be permitted to litigate his cause on its own merit and therefore, delay caused be condoned.
4. The learned counsel for the non-applicant strongly opposed the said application on the ground that there is no justifiable and reasonable cause as far as the condonation of delay is concerned, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the non-applicant, perused the recitals of the application which shows that as he could not receive the papers from the earlier counsel and that is the reason for non filing of the appeal. As far as the codonation of delay is concerned, it is now well settled that while considering the application for condonation of delay the Court should adopt the liberal approach and there should not be pedantic approach. The parties to be permitted to litigate their costs on its own merit. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is properly explained by the applicant, and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
i] The application is allowed.
3 appa471.23.O.odt
ii] Delay of 223 days caused in filing the
appeal is condoned subject to the costs of Rs.3000/.
iii] The applicant shall pay the costs to the non-applicant within one month.
iv] After the payment of the costs, the application for leave to file an appeal be registered.
v] Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned counsel waives notice for the non-applicant.
6. Stand over after four weeks.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) NSN Signed by: Mr. N.S. Nikhare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 06/09/2024 18:16:37