1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2010 (State of Maharashtra vs. Balya @ Manoj Madhukar Gudadhe & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. Heard Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents. The State Government has filed this application for condoning delay of 822 days in filing an appeal against acquittal. The judgment sought to be questioned is delivered by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 10.08.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2005. The case of Government is, the judgment of acquittal was never communicated to the concerned Police Station or authority by the office of the District Government Pleader which handled the matter. It is urged that it is only in Writ Petition No. 179 of 2008 subsequently filed by the present respondents for recovery of damages and for initiation of action for their false implication, when notices were served upon the concerned officer, fact 2 of acquittal came to notice and accordingly steps were initiated. Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the respondents is strongly opposing the prayer. He points out that as a matter of rule, officer from Police Station is always available in a Court to assist the Additional Public Prosecutor and to serve summons on witnesses. It is further urged that the facts disclosed are also not correct because of inherent lacunae in the affidavit. He points out that papers are claimed to have been collected from the Sessions Court after grant of permission from the Law Department to file an appeal. He maintained that after writ petition was filed for recovery of damages and for initiation of departmental enquiry against the officers guilty in the matter of prosecution of the respondents, only to save those officers, decision to file an appeal has been taken. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel earlier on 08.09.2011 and thereafter today. Delay of 822 days in filing an appeal against the acquittal is not in dispute. After hearing respective counsel, we find that it is nowhere the case of the respondents that the applicants have / had taken a conscious decision not to file an appeal after the receipt of copy of judgment of acquittal. It is also not their case that 3 the office of the District Government Pleader had in fact communicated the fact of acquittal to present applicants or to the concerned Police Station. In this situation, it is apparent that the story that the fact of acquittal came to the knowledge of Government only after receipt of notice of writ petition filed by present respondents, needs to be accepted. Moreover, except the allegation that the proceedings are filed to save the Police officers involved in the matter, there are no other allegations of malafides. The respondents are already acquitted and their challenge to false implication is already receiving consideration of this Court in connected matters. In this situation, looking to the facts, the respondents can be sufficiently compensated by directing the applicant to pay to them cost of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If the costs are so paid, delay shall stand condoned and in that event the office to register the appeal and place it along with Writ Petition No. 179 of 2008. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.