1 2640.10-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2640 OF 2010 Shamrao Krishna Thorat. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the petitioner. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 17th June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petition challenges the order dated 18th November 2008 vide which the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Satara has allowed the application filed by the respondent­ State for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order of acquittal. 3. The petitioner was working as Junior Clerk in Education Department of the Zilla Parishad, Satara from 14th April 1977 to 20th September 1978. The complainant­ Shri Mahadeo Raghunath Salunkhe, who was working as Education Officer, had lodged a complaint against the accused thereby alleging that the accused committed misappropriation of Rs. 2,02,432.56. Though the proceedings before the learned trial Court were pending since 1981, the trial had not proceeded and, as such, the petitioner 2 2640.10-wp was required to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1303/2006. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st November 2006 disposed of the said petition with direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the criminal case within a period of three months. The Magistrate vide a well reasoned order dated 18th December 2007 acquitted the petitioner. Learned Magistrate has come to the specific finding that the prosecution had failed to prove entrustment of property or financial affairs with accused and, as such, one of the necessary ingredients to constitute offence under section 409 was itself absent. It appears that being aggrieved thereby, the State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. Application for condonation of delay was also filed along with the appeal. It appears that there was about 10 months delay in filing the appeal. The said application was filed on 18th November 2008 and on the very same day, learned Principal Sessions Judge allowed the said application for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. 4. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have been ignorant of the fact that prior to condonation of delay, least that was expected was to give notice to the respondent­ accused. The application for condonation of delay could not have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge without giving notice to the accused and giving opportunity to him to oppose the application. The said order is patently in breach of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shriram Nagordhar Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 LL MR (Cri) 1311, the impugned order is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. The same will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. Consequently, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)