1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 958 OF 2010 Sudhakar s/o Baburao Goregaonkar, died through L.Rs., Smt. Sunita w/o Sudhakar Patil and others ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri B.S.Kudale, advocate for the applicants Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 31st March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 862 days and for setting aside abatement, if any, and also to bring the heirs/L.Rs. of deceased petitioner on record. 2 3 According to the applicants, original petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 113 of 2000 challenged the order passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Hingoli in R.C.C. No. 371 of 1992 dated 25.1.2000 to the extent of confiscation of muddemal property i.e. melted silver and gold to the Government and it is submitted that Rule was issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘D’ was granted therein by order dated 20.11.2000. 4 However, during the pendency of the said Criminal Revision Application, original petitioner, namely Sudhakar Baburao Goregaonkar expired on 25.7.2007 and copy of his death certificate is annexed at Exh. ‘A’. The applicants submit that applicant nos. 1/1 to 1/5 are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Sudhakar and they are required to be brought on record in Criminal Revision Application No. 113 of 2000 as the heirs and legal representatives of original petitioner. 5 The applicants submit that delay of 862 days was caused in filing the present application and it is also submitted by the applicants that the said delay is not willful, deliberate or intentional, and therefore, same is also required to be condoned 3 in the interest of justice, as well as the order of abatement, if any, is required to be set aside. 6 Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashida Kamaluddin Syed and anr. Vs Shaikh Saheblal Mardam (dead) her L.Rs. And anr., reported at 2007 (3) AIR Bom R 576 (S.C.), as under :- “ From the above case law, in our opinion, it is clear that on the death of Shaikh Saheblal, the case did not abate. It was, therefore, open to the sons of complainant to apply for continuation of proceedings against accused persons. By granting such prayer, no illegality has been committed by the courts. “ 7 Considering the afore said position and for the reasons stated in the present application, the applicants have explained the delay satisfactorily and since same does not appear to be willful, deliberate or intentional, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice, as well as heirs of original petitioner are required to be brought on record, since right to prosecute continues in them in Criminal Revision Application No. 113 of 2000. 4 8 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 958 of 2010 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ thereof and stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap958.10