1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 343 of 2009 IN Criminal Application No. 102 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 [The State of Mah. Vs. Venugopal G. Nayyar & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. K. Joshi, APP for appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. State has come in Appeal. Appeal is delayed by 153 days. 2. This Court has called upon learned APP to address the Court on merits, in order that if there be some merit in appeal, notice on application for condonation of delay can be issued. 3. Heard. 4. Perused the Judgment. 2 5. It is seen that the accused persons were tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988, read with Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned Special Judge found that the abuses, which attract Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988, are not proved. 7. In so far as grievous hurt is concerned, even that was not proved. On the other hand, the weapon allegedly used, i.e., chain of a bicycle, did not match with the injuries. 8. The Special Judge found that the accused were liable to be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and preferred to convict, but not to sentence, and being first offence, ordered admonition. 9. It is not show that the findings about acquittal are untenable. 11. The contradictions shown are seen to be based on record. 10. The fact that charge under Section 324, 3 Indian Penal Code, is not proved, is also incapable of being disputed. 11. Question as to whether the case being of first offence, admonition should be given, is a matter of discretion, which has been exercised by the Special Judge after conducting the proceedings. 12. Therefore, the appeal does not merit any interference. 13. In the result, this Court finds that no grounds are found to issue notice on application for condonation of delay. 14. Applications and appeal are rejected. Judge |Hedau|