1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPA NO. 136/2009 [State of Maharashtra ...vs.... Shankarrao Govindrao Sontakke and another] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2009. Heard Smt. Joshi, learned APP, for applicant State and Shri Amol Mardikar, learned counsel for Respondents. By the present application, the applicant State has prayed for condoning the delay of 54 days in seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment & order dated 1st April, 2009, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 & 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the count of sufficient cause being not shown by the applicant and there could be no different parameters for the State as that for the ordinary litigants as observed in a decision in a case of Laxman N. Divekar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 745. The Learned APP in counter to the same urged 2 by placing the reliance upon a decision of Apex Court in a case of State (NTC of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 4355, that the said later on decision given by the Apex Court itself reveals that though there cannot be different parameters still factors peculiar to and characteristic of functioning of Governmental conditions cannot be ignored and State cannot be put to be on the same footing as an individual; as individual would always be quick in taking decisions whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. The learned APP thus urged that having regard to true import of the said decision and the factors required to be taken into consideration and explained for the present application, the delay deserves to be condoned. After taking into consideration the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. delay having occurred due to administrative reasons, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice and particularly having regard to the matter being related to the commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. The same appears accordingly after taking into consideration the factors peculiar to and characteristic of functioning of Governmental conditions required to be taken into consideration as pointed in a decision relied by the learned APP and hence it appears that non condoning the delay may result in not giving an opportunity to the 3 applicant/ appellant State to get contested the matter on the merits regarding such a subject matter closely connected with the public interest. In the premises aforesaid, delay of 54 days in preferring an application for a leave as sought for preferring an appeal is hereby condoned. Issue notice of an application for leave to appeal to the respondents, returnable on 10/12/2009. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel, waives notice for respondents. Parties are put to notice that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage after hearing them. JUDGE Rvjalit