AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Tanaji Nivrutti Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. V.S. Paradkar for respondents 1 and 3. Mr. Unnikrishnan for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. This application is filed by the State of Maharashtra praying that delay in filing the appeal be condoned. There is 306 days' delay in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, in paragraph III, the following explanation is offered. “III. The Applicant states that after receipt of the papers in the office of the Public Prosecutor, High AJN 2 Court, (A.S.), Mumbai, the matter was assigned to the concerned Additional Public Prosecutor for drafting application for Leave to Appeal. The Applicant states that after drafting the application for leave to appeal and condonation of delay, its print outs were taken on 07.02.2008 and after signature, the concerned Additional Public Prosecutor handed over the same to the filing department, Office of Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai on 07.02.2008. The present application of Leave to appeal came to be filed in this Hon'ble Court on 8/2/08. The Applicant further states that thus the delay has occurred in filing present application for Leave to Appeal. The said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred precisely in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove.” 2. It appears that on 13/6/2008, attention of this court was drawn to letter dated 17/4/2008 addressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Greater Mumbai to learned Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai. This court found that the appeal memo was ready in July, 2007. However, there was no explanation for the period between July, 2007 and February, 2008. This court, therefore, directed the State to file a proper affidavit. In deference to this order, affidavit dated 24/6/2008 has been filed by Ms. Kalpana Chavan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. We have also perused the affidavit of Mr. AJN 3 Yashwant Baburao Shirke, Police Inspector attached to Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. In the said affidavit, reasonable explanation has been offered for the period between July, 2007 and February, 2008. 3. We have heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. She submitted that the State has offered acceptable explanation for delay and, hence, in the interest of justice delay be condoned. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent 2. They have strenuously opposed condonation of delay. According to them, the explanation offered by the State is totally unacceptable. 4. In our opinion, affidavits of Ms. Kalpana Chavan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Mumbai and affidavit of Mr. Yashwant Shirke, PI attached to ACB, Mumbai read along with the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay make out a case for condonation of delay. Hence, for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, affidavit of Ms. Chavan and in the affidavit of Mr. Shirke, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Criminal application is disposed of. AJN 4 [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.]