NANDKUMAR S/O. NARAYANRAO BORWAR Vs. SAU.SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. H.M. Sakhare for the petitioners and learned Counsel Smt. Pranita Chobe for the respondent. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on Exh. 14 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 10/2010. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has condoned the delay in filing appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent is complainant as well as victim of the offence. It appears from the record that initially she attempted to pursue the matter before the Government authorities so that the appeal could be filed by the State against the order of acquittal. However, since no appeal was filed by the State, she has filed appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The delay has been properly explained and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer any infirmity. I do not find any merit in the petition.