HEMANT ABAJI PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quite a fanciful point questioning the maintainability of this appeal is raised by Shri Gumaste, the learned Council appearing for the respondent-accused in this case. After hearing in fully, we are satisfied that it discloses nothing but the ipse dixit of the learned Counsel.

(2.) The facts necessary for formulating the point are as follows :

(3.) In view of the fact that the Legal Department had developed cold feet in the matter of prosecution of the case further, the aggrieved parties filed Criminal Revision Application No. 561 of 1980 in this Court. Rule was issued by this Court on that revision application on 24-9-1980. After the rule was issued, Shri B.Y. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in that Revision Application No. 561 of 1980, moved the Government, meaning thereby the Legal Department, to reconsider the decision not to file the appeal. It appears that the Legal Department did reconsider there decision and decided to file the appeal and gave necessary directions to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay, to file the appeal. In this process, a delay of 55 days was cause. Hence while filing the appeal against the order of acquittal, an application namely, Criminal Application No. 147 of 1981, was filed by the Public Prosecutor for condonation of delay. Both the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal were placed for admission before this Court. Simultaneously, the delay was condoned by this Court and the appeal was admitted. In the application for condonation of delay (No. 147 of 1981), averments were made by the Public Prosecutor to the effect that the initial decision of the Legal Department was not to file the appeal. It was also stated that thereafter the Legal Department changed its view and has given direction to the Public Prosecutors Office to file the appeal. Evidently, the averment was made with a view to point out to the Court the reason why the delay was caused. This Court was satisfied that this was a genuine reason for the delay and hence this Court even condoned the delay.