1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.967/2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.551/2006 The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. V E R S U S Venkat @ Meghraj Ramrao Deokate and ors. Respondents --- Shri V.D.Godbharle, A. P. P. for the appellant/applicant. Shri S.D. Jadhav h/f Mr. V. R Dhorde, Advocate for respondent 1 to 6. --- CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Applicant-State has filed Criminal Appeal No.551/2006. In that appeal, there are around 5 respondents. In that appeal itself leave was sought on behalf of the State to appeal under section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Quashment of the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir Dist. Latur dated 07.04.2006 in S.C. No.30/2005 was also sought for. Said Criminal appeal 2 was before this Court on 13.11.2009. After hearing the parties, appeal is admitted. Indisputably, in Sessions Case No.30/2005 there were six accused persons. All of them were tried for offence under section 302, 304-A, 498-A, 201 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. All of them were acquitted by the trial court by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2006, which was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.551/2006, as noticed by us. 3. Present criminal application No.967/2010 is filed on behalf of the State. In this application there are six respondents. Against respondents No.1 to 5 criminal appeal No.551/2006 was already filed. Leave has been granted by this Court, meaning thereby said appeal has been admitted. Mr. Godbharle, learned A.P.P. submitted that inadvertently original accused No.6 Smt. Nanda d/o Ramrao Deokate was not joined as party-respondent in Criminal Appeal No.551/2006. This is purely inadvertence, that is the reason in this criminal application now Smt. Nanda Ramrao Deokate is sought to be added. Present application is filed on behalf of the State on 08.03.2010. 4. Advocate Mr. S.D.Jadhav instructed by Mr. V. R. Dhorde who appears for respondents No. 1 to 6 (including Smt. Nanda) points out reply affidavit filed. After hearing the parties leave is granted. Necessary correction to be carried out during the course of the day. He points out paragraph No.2 of the reply affidavit. According to him, 3 acquittal was recorded by the trial court in relation to all accused persons including present respondent No.6 Nanda on 07.04.2006 in S.C. No. 30/2005. If such prayer is granted by this Court, present respondent No. 6 would stand added as respondent No.6 in that appeal beyond period of limitation. According to him, four years have been passed over. There is no criminal application filed on behalf of the State seeking condonation of delay. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, in our view, alleged inadvertence on the part of the State authorities cannot be a ground neither to allow the application and original accused No.6 Smt. Nanda to be permitted to join as respondent in the appeal. So also there is no explanation for delay either in this criminal application or there is no separate application filed as of today by the applicant. All in all, in our view no case now to consider the plea raised by the applicant for addition of respondent No.6 in already admitted appeal No.551/2006. 6. Criminal application stands rejected. No costs. Rule discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE ) ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE JUDGE. aaa/967.10 .......