Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hari Mudkhede, was the original complainant in a criminal case against four accused persons (respondents 2 to 5) under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the accused on 10 July 2009. The petitioner challenged the acquittal by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 170 of 2011 before the High Court, along with an application for condonation of delay of 11 days. The delay was condoned, but later the petitioner sought to withdraw the revision petition and instead file an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The High Court allowed the withdrawal on 1 August 2011, granting liberty to file an appeal but clarifying that the aspect of limitation would apply. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court along with an application for condonation of delay of 25 days. The Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, rejected the condonation application on 28 August 2012, holding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition challenging that order. The High Court heard rival submissions and examined the facts. The court noted that the Sessions Court had considered the explanation and found it unsatisfactory. The High Court held that the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court was not perverse or arbitrary, and the petitioner did not make out a case for interference under writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Sessions Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Condonation of delay - Section 372 CrPC, Section 5 Limitation Act - The complainant sought to file an appeal against acquittal with a delay of 25 days. The Sessions Court rejected the condonation application on the ground that the complainant failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court was not perverse or arbitrary, and the complainant did not provide sufficient cause for the delay. (Paras 1-6)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Withdrawal of revision - Liberty to file appeal - Section 372 CrPC - The complainant withdrew a criminal revision petition with liberty to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC. The High Court granted liberty but clarified that limitation would apply. The subsequent appeal was delayed by 25 days, and the Sessions Court rejected the condonation application. The High Court held that the Sessions Court's order was justified and did not warrant interference. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 372 CrPC
- Appeal against acquittal
- Discretion of court
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 5
Criminal Writ Petition No.906 of 2012
Mr B.S.Shinde for petitioner, Mr P.P.More, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State, Mr U.B.Bilolikar for respondents 2 to 5
Hari s/o Narayan Mudkhede
The State of Maharashtra, Datta s/o Digambar Mudkhede, Ramkisan s/o Digambar Mudkhede, Maruti s/o Digambar Mudkhede, Vimalbai w/o Digambar Mudkhede
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge rejecting application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, rejecting the application for condonation of delay, and to allow the appeal against acquittal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appeal against acquittal was delayed by 25 days, and the Sessions Court rejected the condonation application on the ground of insufficient cause.
Previous Decisions
The trial court acquitted the accused on 10.7.2009. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2011 which was withdrawn with liberty to file appeal under Section 372 CrPC on 1.8.2011. The Sessions Court rejected the condonation application on 28.8.2012.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Sessions Court erred in rejecting the condonation application as the delay was only 25 days and the petitioner had sufficient cause.
Respondents argued that the Sessions Court's order was justified as the petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily.
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion exercised by the Sessions Court in rejecting the condonation of delay application was not perverse or arbitrary. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay of 25 days. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with such a discretionary order unless it is shown to be perverse or arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
The facts of the present matter are rather peculiar in nature.
It was made clear that the aspect of limitation shall play its own role and if the applicant prefers any application for condonation of delay before the Sessions Court, it shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
In the present matter, the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.
Procedural History
The trial court acquitted the accused on 10.7.2009. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2011 before the High Court with an application for condonation of delay of 11 days, which was condoned. On 1.8.2011, the High Court allowed withdrawal of the revision petition with liberty to file appeal under Section 372 CrPC. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Sessions Court with an application for condonation of delay of 25 days. The Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, rejected the condonation application on 28.8.2012. The petitioner filed the present criminal writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 324, 504, 506, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 372
- Limitation Act, 1963: 5
