✦ Bombay High Court · 09 Mar 2006

REVISION CRIMINAL Viranna Someshekhar Hulgeri v. Netaji Appasaheb More & Anr.

Criminal Application No. 334 of 2006A S OKA3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Partly allowed

Revision Application is partly allowed in above

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. I considered submissions. The preferring Appeal against conviction days. While considering Application condonation section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Court required a liberal approach. Considering reason paragraph 4 impugned order, I learned Judge adopted hyper technical approach. This was a fit case for condonation of…
  • Para 66. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 9th March 2006 is quashed and set aside. - 3 - ii) Criminal Misc. Application No.332 of 2005 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. iii) The Sessions Judge…

Judgment

ORALORALORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:

1.

Rule. Shri Purwant waives service Respondent No.1. Learned A.P.P. waives service Respondent No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Revision Application is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

2.

The Applicant accused a complaint

Respondent section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881. The complaint resulted conviction Applicant. The substantive sentence awarded imprisonment year. The Applicant directed compensation Rs.15,000/-. An Appeal preferred Applicant against conviction sentence Sessions Court. There a preferring Appeal. By impugned Judgment Order 9th March 2006, application for condonation of delay was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur.

3.

The learned Advocate Applicant instructions Applicant pointed compensation amount - 2 - deposited Trial Court. He states sufficient explanation for delay of six days. Shri Purwant opposes the prayer for condonation of delay.

4.

I considered submissions. The preferring Appeal against conviction days. While considering Application condonation section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Court required a liberal approach. Considering reason paragraph 4 impugned order, I learned Judge adopted hyper technical approach. This was a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay in preferring the Appeal deserves to be condoned.

5.

The Applicant already deposited compensation amount Rs.15,000/-. Now Appeal against conviction heard. As compensation amount already deposited Applicant already undergone sentence 29 days, sentence remain suspended disposal Appeal subject condition Applicant cooperate Sessions Court disposal Appeal. If Applicant cooperate, the Sessions Judge is entitled to revoke the order of suspension.

Operative part

6.

Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 9th March 2006 is quashed and set aside. - 3 - ii) Criminal Misc. Application No.332 of 2005 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. iii) The Sessions Judge register Appeal preferred by the Applicant and the Appeal shall be heard as expeditiously as possible. iv) Till disposal Appeal, sentence passed Trial Court remain suspended subject condition Applicant co-operate Sessions Court expeditious disposal Appeal. Any attempt Applicant hearing Appeal will be a ground to revoke the order of suspension of the sentence. v) The Applicant personally present today. The parties directed appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur on 20th November 2006 at 11.00 a.m. vi) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Appeal are expressly kept open. vii) Revision Application is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Revision Application is partly allowed in above

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2006. The bench was A S OKA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 334 of 2006). ← Search more judgments