LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-47

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIJAY BAJIRAO KAKLIJ

Decided On November 21, 2007
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
JIJABAI BAJIRAO KAKLIJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay of 292 days in filing application for leave to appeal, against the judgment dated 4th October 2005 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Malegaon, district Nashik in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2005.

(2.) Undisputedly the application for certified copy was made on 6th October 2005 and the certified copy was ready and delivered on 20th March 2006. It is the case of the applicant that the Additional Public Prosecutor at Malegaon under his letter dated 12-2-2007 submitted the papers to the Law and Judiciary Department, requesting to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment. The Law and Judiciary department thereafter on scrutinizing the papers under resolution dated 13th March 2007 directed the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai to file the appeal. The necessary papers in that regard were received in the office of Public Prosecutor on 21st March 2007 and the present appeal was filed on 5th April 2007.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, it reveals that there is absolutely no explanation on record as regards the period from 20th March 2006 to 12th February 2007, apart from stating that after receipt of certified copy of impugned judgment on 20th March 2006, Additional Public Prosecutor at Malegaon submitted the papers to the Law and Judiciary department by his letter dated 12th February 2007 requesting to prefer the appeal. There is no explanation whether as regards for delay of a long period from 20th March 2006 to 12th February 2007 to submit the opinion and the necessary papers by the concerned APP at Malegaon to the Law and Judiciary department. It was necessary for the Law and Judiciary department to get necessary explanation in that regard from the concerned Additional Public Prosecutor, and to ascertain whethere there was negligence on the part of the concerned law officer to take appropriate action and explain the same in the application for condonation of delay. Failure in that regard discloses that there is no sufficient cause disclosed for the said period for consideration of the said delay.