APPA/24/2011 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO........ OF 2011 Aparna Sharad Ghule ... Applicant V/s. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Pawar & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.B. Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr. Kuldeep Patil for Respondent No.1. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY, J.J. DATE : 8 TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel, for the Applicant and Mr. Kuldeep Patil, the learned Advocate, for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Pai, the learned APP, appears for the Respondent No.2-State of Maharashtra. The Applicant is the prosecutrix in Sessions Case No.78 of 2008 in which the Respondent No.1 has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, Dist. Pune by his order dated 15th September, 2009. Against the said order of acquittal, the Applicant seeks to file Criminal Appeal under Section 372 APPA/24/2011 2 Dixit of the Criminal Procedure Code, but belatedly. Hence, this application for condonation of delay. 2. As per the office note, the Appeal filed by the Applicant-Appellant is beyond time by 387 days. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply and has opposed the application for condonation of delay and as per him the Appeal is beyond time by 347 days. 3. It has been pointed out by the Applicant that she had received the certified true copy of the order of acquittal on 3rd October, 2009 and she has filed the Appeal on 13th December, 2010. She has further submitted that she was under bonafide belief that the State Government would file the Appeal against the order of acquittal and she had approached the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who had appeared before the trial Court. In the first week of December, 2010, she came to know that the State Government did not file any Appeal and, therefore, she decided to invoke her right under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code to file an Appeal against the order of acquittal. 4. Mr. Kuldeep Patil, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on the other hand submitted that the explanation so furnished cannot be accepted and more so when there is no record to indicate that she had approached the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by any letter or there was any correspondence that APPA/24/2011 3 Dixit she had initiated with the appropriate authority in the Home Ministry or the Law Ministry so as to challenge the order of acquittal. He also pointed out that the Appeal has been filed by way of an afterthought and in retaliation as the Respondent No.1 has filed Special Civil Suit No.181 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for damages on account of defamation against the Applicant and three others. It has also been pointed out that the Appeal has been filed only after the Applicant was served with notice in the said Suit. 5. The right of Appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available to the victim against the order of acquittal and though the explanation furnished in support of the inordinate delay of more than one year may not be furnishing satisfactory explanation, it would be in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned and more so when the parties have agreed that the Appeal would be decided at the admission stage itself. 6. Hence, the delay caused in filing Criminal Appeal under Stamp No...... of 2011 is hereby condoned and the application is allowed accordingly. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]