1 criapln1661-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1661 OF 2011 Masrat Devram Sawle .. APPLICANT V/s The State of Maha. .. RESPONDENT .... Shri V.S.Bedre,Adv.for applicant. Shri D.V.Tele,APP.for State. .... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 21/04/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1] Heard. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 302,324,504,506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The co-accused viz. Pandurang Baliram Sawale filed Criminal Appeal No.274/09 and Kailas Baliram Sawale filed Criminal Appeal No.263/09 against said judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The Division Bench of this Court [Coram : P.V.Hardas & A.V.Potdar,JJ.] disposed of these two Appeals by common judgment and order on 7/1/2011. The Division Bench recorded that present applicant Hasrat Devram Sawle 2 criapln1661-11 has chosen not to challenge his conviction and no appeal was filed on his behalf. 2] Criminal Appeals filed by co-accused as stated above were partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against Pandurang was set aside and instead, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. In respect of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 452 r.w. 34 of I.P.C., the conviction and sentence was maintained as regards Appeal filed by Pandurang. 3] Criminal Appeal No.263/09 filed by Kailas Baliram Sawle was also partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 452, 506 and 324 r.w. S.34 of I.P.C. was confirmed. However, the period of sentence awarded was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, by increasing fine amount. 4] Learned counsel Shri Bedre produced a simple copy of judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel Shri Bedre submits that the applicant had financial difficulties, therefore, he could not prefer Appeal. When applicant came to know about disposal of the Appeal filed by co-accused, he decided to file appeal. Counsel for applicant submits that on the application filed by applicant, Legal Services Authority took steps to file appeal on behalf 3 criapln1661-11 of the applicant against the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 5] We have heard learned A.P.P. Shri D.V.Tele for Respondent- State. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. Delay is condoned. Application is allowed. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] (NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/criapln1661-11