1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1809 /2009 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. .../2009 (State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Mate ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Anup Parihar APP for applicant Mr. K V Thomas Adv.for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By this application, the applicant-State prayed for condonation of delay of 223 days in order to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal, which was passed on 12.6.2008 by learned Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act- Additional Sessions Judge -2 Nagpur, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(b) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned APP on behalf of the applicant prayed for time to explain each and every day’s delay. However, it does appear that in the application filed on behalf of the applicant, the delay was sought to be explained on the ground that on 16.7.2009 the applicant had received certified copy of the judgment and, thereafter, on 17.7.2009 opinion was sought from the Government Pleader, District Court, Nagpur. On 21.2.2009 the applicant received letter from Law & Judiciary Department Nagpur to submit copy of the depositions. On 2nd March 2009, the applicant had submitted relevant documents to Joint Secretary Law & Judiciary Department Nagpur on 9.4.2009. The applicant had received letter from the O/o Government Pleader, High Court, Nagpur to submit typed copy of the judgment and on 15.4.2009 the applicant submitted typed copy of the judgment to the office of the Govt. Pleader, High Court, Nagpur. It is therefore, contended that the delay of 223 days, be condoned. 2 2. Prayer has been stoutly objected on behalf of the respondent/accused, stating that the applicant utterly failed to furnish cogent, substantial and genuine reasons to explain the delay of 223 days to prefer the appeal. It is contended that the delay is sought to be explained in a casual, cursory and lethargic manner, in respect of the judgment of the trial Court which was well-reasoned and based upon appreciation of facts in the matter. According to respondent/accused, no action seems to have been taken by the applicant for seven months and the applicant was not at all diligent and serious to obtain opinion from the authority concerned. Thus, on the ground that the applicant has failed to explain the delay of each day for want of cogent and bona fide reasons, the application be rejected. 3. It is true that when judgment and order of acquittal has been passed, it is the duty of the Prosecutor concerned in the trial Court and the State Govt. Pleader or Public Prosecutor concerned to immediately follow the Rules in State of Maharashtra relating to Law officers’ Conduct & Business and take prompt steps as contemplated therein in order to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal. The delay, if any, is required to be explained giving cogent and reasonable ground which may be prima facie believed so as to condone the delay. The applicant has to make out sufficient cause by explaining each days’ delay by giving cogent and reasonable explanation which appears absent in this case. Presumption of innocence in faovur of the accused gets bolstered up pursuant to judgment and order of acquittal and, therefore, the applicant who wants to prefer the appeal must be vigilant to take sincere and prompt steps in order to challenge such judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 4. I do not find sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 223 days in this case. Hence the application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare