1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2011

IN

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2011

(Murlidhar Durgaji Sakharkar .v. State of Maharashtra and another)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram

appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders

and Registrar's orders.

Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri A.M. Deshpande, APP for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

03RD OCTOBER, 2011.

Heard.

By way of present application, the applicant is seeking

condanation of delay of one year and 11 months in filing the

revision.

The only ground stated in the application is that one

Shri Umesh Chandrawanshi, who was working as Manager of

Mouda Branch at the relevant time and on whose complaint the

offence was registered, was transferred and the person occupying

the post thereafter got retired. In such circumstance, the matter

was not attended. It is also further submitted in the application

that the case papers were misplaced and the applicant could not

lay his hands only on the xerox copy of the judgment of the trial

Court and in such circumstance, the delay of one year and 11

months has been occurred.

It is not in dispute that if there are just and sufficient

reasons, the delay can be condoned. In the present application,

only the ground given stating about the transfer of one Shri

Umesh Chandrawanshi, who was working as Manager at the

relevant time, was transferred and the person occupying the post

succeeding Shri Chandrawanshi got retired.

In the reply filed by the respondent No.2, it is

specifically averred that these facts are not true and one Shri Raut

was succeeding Shri Chandrawanshi as Manager of Mouda

2

Branch and is not retired but still working as Recovery Officer at

Ramtek for Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank, Nagpur and

the said Mouda Branch of this Bank is attached to the Ramtek

Branch.

In such situation, there is no reason to arrive at a

conclusion that the officer incharge who was succeeding Shri

Chandrawanshi stood retired and the matter was unattended.

The other ground about misplacing of the documents

is also not supported by any document such as to show that any

step had taken by the officer incharge to find out the papers which

are misplaced or fixing any responsibility to subordinate officers

who were allegedly responsible for misplacing the documents.

The delay which is nearly two years is not at all properly

explained.

In my opinion, as there are no just and sufficient

grounds for condoning such delay of two years, the application is

devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

In the result, the application is rejected.

JUDGE

*rrg.