(1) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1009 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Ravindra Eknath Marathe, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. Jalna .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1010 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Ravindra Eknath Marathe .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1011 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Ashok Mohanrao Pangarkar .. Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1012 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Ashok Mohanrao Pangarkar .. Respondent Mrs. S.D. Shelke, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. Joshi, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the respondent (In Cri. Appln. 1010.2010, 1009.2010) Mr. K.B. Jadhav, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the respondent (In Cri. Appln. 1011.2010 & 1012.2010) ... (2) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2 CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. There is delay of 20 days and 24 days respectively in filing of the Applications seeking leave to Appeal. It is alleged that the proposal of Appeal was received by the Law & Judiciary Department, Aurangabad and was cleared after scrutiny. It was received in the Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad on 16.2.2010 and was allotted to the concerned APP for drafting of the Appeal. There took place certain delay due to time consumed in preparing the draft and obtaining necessary instructions. 3. Considering the fact that the delay is un- intentional and is duly explained in the Applications, the delay will have to be condoned. Hence, the Applications for condonation of delay are allowed. (3) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2 4. So far as request for grant of leave to Appeal is concerned, it may be stated that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondents by order dated 17.12.2007 in RCC 616 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge however allowed the Criminal Appeal nos. 1 of 2008 and 2 of 2008. The charges against both the accused would show that the accused nos. 1 and 2 are the sevekaris of Shri Swami Samarth Kendra. It was alleged that though the accused no.1 was supposed to take care of the property of the trust, yet he and the accused no.2 got transferred plot nos. 66 and 67 in favour of the accused no.2 under a registered sale deed dated 5.10.1995. The plots are the properties of the trust called “Shree Swami Samarth Adhyatmik Bal Sanskar Kendra”. The sale deed shows name of the purchaser as “Proposed Shree Swami Samarth Seva Kendra, Jalna.” The question is whether there was criminal intention to grab the property of the trust. 5. Considering the contradictory judgments of both the Courts below, this is a fit case in which (4) CRI.APP. 1009.2010+2 leave to Appeal needs to be granted. Hence, the Applications are allowed and leave to Appeal is granted. The learned Advocate in respective Applications waive service for the respondents. Hence, no action under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for. 6. Admit. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp