- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 132 OF 2007 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 699 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra Applicant (Original complainant) Vs. Kranti K. Rathod Respondents (Original accused Nos. 1 to 8.) Mr. P. S. Hingorani, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,& SRI. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2008. PC . Heard the learned APP for the applicant. None present for the respondent. 2. We have perused the application as well as the impugned judgment and order. As regards the application for condonation of delay, admittedly there is a delay of 18 days in filing application for leave to appeal. The impugned order is dated 30th June 2006. The application for certified copy was filed - 2 - on 10th July 2006 and it was ready 31st October 2006 and delivered on on 1st November 2006. In normal circumstances, the appeal should have been filed by 19th January 2007. However, it was filed on 7th February 2007. The grounds disclosed for delay is that the matter was pending with Law and Judiciary since 13th December 2006 for necessary resolution regarding the decision to file appeal and it was clear that resolution was issued on 20/22th January 2007. Only thereafter the necessary communication was received by the office of Public Prosecutor and accordingly the appeal was filed. The application nowhere discloses the justification of 38 days which were taken by the Law & Judiciary Department for merely scrutinizing the papers and issuing the necessary government resolution for filing appeal. On that ground itself, the application for condonation is liable to be dismissed. 3. Even otherwise on merits also, there is no substance for interference in the matter. It is a case wherein the respondent - 3 - has sought to be prosecuted on the ground of commission of offence of dacoity. Undisputedly the accused were not known to the complainant and the witnesses and yet no identification parade was conducted. Added to that, the complainant and witnesses were called to the police station so that they could see the accused persons and identify them in the open Court. In that regard the trial Court has clearly observed that the investigating officer has clearly admitted that he did not conduct the identification parade as the witness had seen them from a long distance and therefore, it would not have been possible for them to identify the accused persons. The relevant portion in the judgment in that regard reads thus,- "he testified that identification parade was not conducted as witnesses saw the accused from long distance. He admitted that he came to the conclusion that witnesses would be unable to identify accused. He admitted that the complainant and the other witnesses were called to the police station. The evidence discloses that the accused were shown by police to the complainant and other witnesses". The - 4 - impugned judgment also discloses that panchas were turned hostile and there was no cogent evidence available showing involvement of the accused person in the alleged offence. The applicants are not able to point out any infirmity as sought in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment apparently discloses the detailed analysis of material on record in proper perspective and the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on detail analysis of evidence. There has been no case made out by the prosecution for interference in the case. For the reasons stated therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the application for leave to appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- [ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED,J.]