1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1964 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2003 Rajkumar s/o Bhagchand Kungani ...Applicant Versus Rajkumar Hargundas Khupchandani and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Hemant Pawar i/b Mr. A.H. Kapadia, advocate for the applicant Mr. Darandale i/b Mr. R. N. Dhorde, advocate for respondent No.1 to 8. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent-State. ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 We heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 This application is filed by the original complainant seeking condonation of around 5 days delay occurred in filing the appeal. Mr. Dardandale i/b Mr. R.N. Dhorde, who appears for respondent No.1 to 8 submitted that there is no justifiable grounds raised for condonation of delay. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel i/b Mr. A.H. Kapadia, who 2 appears for the applicant supports the application. Two grounds have been raised seeking condonation of around 7/8 days delay. The applicant claims that he is resident of Jabalpur. He had lodged F.I.R. in respect of the unnatural death of his daughter deceased Divya. Based on the said report, criminal law was put in motion. Offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. with some other offences were registered. The charge sheet was filed. The case was tried by the competent Court. The competent Court passed composite judgment and order, whereby some of the accused persons have been convicted, some of them are acquitted and the learned Judge has also passed an order of return of property pertaining to some gold ornaments. 3 There is no dispute amongst the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, pertaining to the composite nature of the order passed in Sessions Case No. 176 of 2001. The judgment was delivered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 21.5.2003. The second ground raised by the applicant seeking condonation of delay is of insufficiency of the funds necessary for filing appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. 4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the explanation tendered by the applicant, seeking condonation of delay, is just and sufficient. No malafides can be attributed to the applicant. 3 Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay. 5 Criminal Application accordingly is allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and disposed of. No costs. 6 The appeal, which is filed by the present applicant aggrieved by the part of the order passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, pertaining to return of gold ornaments in favour of the accused No.4 Naresh Hargundas Khupchandani, to be heard along with the pending proceeding i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2003 (appeal against conviction filed by the accused persons, who are convicted), Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2003 (appeal against acquittal filed by the State) and Criminal Revision Application No. 252 of 2003, pending before this Court. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/