1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3957 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Rajendra Shankar Patil .. Respondent Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. Mr.Tushar Pimpale h/f. Mr. Amit Sale for the Respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 8th JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for condonation of delay of 59 days preferred by State of Maharashtra in filing appeal alongwith the leave petition against the order of discharge of the Respondent for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2 2. At this juncture prior to deciding the application for condonation of delay, it would be profitable to mention that impugned order of the Special Judge, Sangli appears to have been passed on the application made by the Respondent original accused, purportedly to have been made under section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code. Under Chapter XVIII regarding trial before Sessions Courts, section 227 appear. For the discharge of any accused for the offence in warrant triable cases, comes under section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the opinion of this Court, though, the Sessions Court dealt with the Anti Corruption matters as the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, the cases are warrant triable cases. In that view of the matter, it is disputable whether against any order of discharge either under section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code or under section 245 of the same Code, an appeal can lie as the appeal against the acquittal. However, such issue can be dealt at length afterwards after the present application for condonation of delay is disposed of. The learned A.P.P. for the State reserves his right to argue on behalf of the legal aspect at the appropriate time. 3. Now coming back to the present application for condonation of delay. It appears that there is a delay in challenging the impugned order for about 59 days and according to the averments in the application, it is because of systemic delay while papers travelled in Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for getting the approval to challenge the impugned order by way of Government 3 Resolution. In the opinion of this Court, said delay of 59 days is required to be condonded and the matter is required to be heard on merits for challenging the impugned order. In the result, the present application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. Leave petition adjourned for two weeks to ascertain whether it can be entertained in view of the above legal provisions expressed. 5. With these directions, the delay condonation application, is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)