IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5203 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.754 OF 2005 Gorakshnath Balasaheb Kurhade )..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr.S.S.Ovalekar i/by Smt.Asmita Sarangdhar for the applicant. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa APP for the Respondent/State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 23.07.2008. PC 1. This is an application for condonation of 312 days delay in filing of the criminal appeal. No reply is filed on behalf of the State. It is contended that the delay was not deliberate. That the applicant was transferred to Bhandara and there was difficulty in communicating with his Advocate. That judgment and order of acquittal was not available. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to accept the contentions as raised. Hence, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.754 OF 2005 1. Heard. Admit. 2. By consent, matter is heard premptorily. The : 2 : applicant has been acquitted of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)d r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the search was taken, an amount of Rs.71,940/- was found in his table and this money was seized. It is an admitted position and the finding of the Court that after going through the record, the Investigating officer found that amount was in excess and did not tally with the entry in the register. At the time of seizure itself appellant explained that it was an amount of salary received by him. On this aspect the Court held that there was no sanction for prosecuting the appellant for possessing this cash and no chargesheet was therefore, filed under Section 13(1)d in this regard. Not-with- standing this position the Court arrived at the conclusion that the accused had not produced his pay bill and other documents to show that he had received arrears of salary. I find that once the Court has held that there was no charge in respect of this amount, then the accused was not called upon to produce any document. In his 313 statement it was contended that it was his personal amount. In the absence of charge, the amount could not be confiscated to the government. In the circumstances, appeal is allowed and it is directed that the cash amount of Rs.71,940/- should be returned to the appellant. Appeal allowed and disposed off accordingly. : 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)