- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION REVISION REVISION APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.230 OF 2009 Devendra Raghunath Sonawane through his natural guardian ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Ajay Patil for the applicant Ms S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. F.I.R. was lodged alleging commission of an offences under section 376, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and three others. At the relevant time the applicant was a minor and therefore the case against the applicant was transferred to Juvenile Justice Board. The record of the Juvenile Justice Board shows that the applicant allegedly appeared before the said board and pleaded guilty. The Juvenile Justice Board purportedly passed an order directing that the applicant should be sent to Borstal School. The trial against the co-accused went on and on 24th August 2007, the co-accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court. After the applicant became aware of the order of the Sessions Court, through his guardian he preferred an appeal against the - 2 - order of the board. There was a delay in preferring the appeal. By the impugned order dated 4th December 2009, the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. It was argued before the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant had not accepted the guilt in as much as the answer given by the applicant to the question no.3 was replied both in the negative and in the affirmative. The fact remains that the co accused have been acquitted after a regular trial. When the order was passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, admittedly the applicant was a minor. Therefore, this was a fit case to condone delay in preferring the appeal against order of Juvenile Justice Board. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge has adopted a hypertechnical approach. 4. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The impugned order dated 4th December 2008 is quashed and set aside. The prayer made by in criminal Misc. Application no.61 of 2008 is granted and the delay in preferring appeal before the Sessions Court is condoned. The Sessions Court will deal with the appeal in accordance with the law. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE