906-27-25-revn.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 27 OF 2025 Surekha Subhash Chavan ....Applicant Vs. The State Of Maharashtra and anr ....Respondents Mr. Ramdas Shelke a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Shelake, advocate for the Applicant Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar, advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. : 1. The present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the original accused person challenging the judgment and order dated 3 December 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Other Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2024, thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against conviction. 2. The delay was of 1 month and 24 days in filing the criminal appeal against conviction before the Sessions Court. In the application, it was the case of the Applicant that because of an injury to the right knee, the Applicant was treated in Prakash Hospital, Islampur, and therefore it was not possible for her to file 1 of 4 Iresh IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.09.11 19:12:30 +0530 906-27-25-revn.doc the appeal in time. The medical papers of Prakash Hospital, Islampur, were brought on record. 3. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the case of the Applicant that due to the fall on the right knee, the Applicant was not able to file the appeal in time. The Court, while rejecting the application, came to a finding that it is a settled law that day-to-day delay must be explained. The Court also considered that it took five years for the trial to be completed before the Trial Court, and hence held that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. While this matter was argued before me, since the dispute arises out of a cheque bouncing case and the amount of the cheque being only of 1,10,000/-, the counsel before me made a request to ₹ consider the request of the accused of settling the matter amicably. The Advocate for the accused put forward an offer of 1,50,000/-, ₹ without prejudice to the rights and contentions, to be paid to the Complainant as a full and final settlement amount for a dishonoured cheque of 1,10,000/-. ₹ 5. The Advocate appearing for the Complainant, in response, after taking instructions from his client, submitted that his client is 2 of 4 906-27-25-revn.doc not ready to settle the dispute for an amount of 1,50,000/-. ₹ 6. Hence, I heard the parties on merits. 7. The Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2-original Complainant, has strongly opposed the Criminal Revision Application on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court has considered all the documents on record, including the medical reports furnished by the accused, and hence the Criminal Revision Application should be dismissed. 8. After hearing the parties and after going through the contents of the Criminal Revision Application, the impugned order and the annexures to it in the form of medical papers, I am convinced that the delay of 1 month and 24 days could have been condoned by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Appeal. 9. In view of the same, Criminal Revision Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 10. Other Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2024 filed before the District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, District Sangli, stands allowed. 3 of 4 Iresh 906-27-25-revn.doc 11. The Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Islampur in S.C.C. No. 68 of 2019 be numbered and heard on merits. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] 4 of 4