1 Cri. Appln. 4527.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4527 .OF 2010 Sumanbai W/o Wenda More ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors ... RESPONDENTS ..... Smt. Chaitali Kutti, Advocate h/f R.G. Chavan Advocate for applicant Shri B.J. Sonwane, APP for respondent / State Smt. Vidya P. Shinde, Advocate h/f C.S. Deshmukh Advocate for respondent No. 3 ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 25 th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and affidavit in reply. 2. Delay of over 12 years in preferring an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in Special Case No. 175/1996, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 31-03-1998, is sought to be condoned on the ground of illiteracy of the applicant. The applicant reveals that the prosecution against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 resulting in the Special Case No. 175/1996 before the Additional Sessions 2 Cri. Appln. 4527.10 Judge, Dhule was the result of the complaint lodged by the applicant in respect of the incident of assault and insult on 07-08-1996. A crime Under Section 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Under Section 3(1) (10) the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 was registered against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It is further revealed in the application that she being illiterate and poor, could not file any further proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The applicant further contends that on the basis of Judgment and Order of acquittal the respondent No. 2 – Bhaskar has filed Special Civil Suit No. 58/1998 against the applicant and one Gangaram Patil for damages on account of malicious prosecution. It appears that after the contest in the said suit, the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- on 20-08-2004 against the applicant and other defendant- Vasant Gangaram Patil; and after passing of the decree when notice of execution of the said decree was served on the applicant in the month of September, 2010, she sought legal advise and thereupon obtained certified copy of the Judgment and Order of acquittal, and approached this Court. 3. Incidentally, it needs to be observed that what matters in the cases of such kind is not the illiteracy alone but the 3 Cri. Appln. 4527.10 sensibilities of a person. In the present case, the applicant had contested the suit and was sufficiently aware of what was in store for her in future, and yet she chose to remain insipid and slept over her rights, and therefore, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. 4. Lastly, it is clarified that the observations made herein shall not effect the rights and contentions of the parties, in taking recourse to the legal remedies available under law elsewhere. The present application is therefore, rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM*August-11