Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22081 (BOM)

THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS GHUGGUS DIST.CHANDRAPUR v. AJAY S/O RAVINDRA RAUT

APPA/542/2023 · 2026-01-13

Nivedita Prakash Mehta, Shri Anil L Pansare

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 6-APPA-542-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.542/2023 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) STAMP NO. 3728/2023 The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ghuggus Vs. Ajay S/o Ravindra Raut Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader and Senior Advocate for Applicant Mr. R.R. Mahajan, Adv. h/f Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Adv. for Respondent CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2026 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra is seeking to condone the delay of 92 days in filing appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st October, 2022, passed by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 82/2021, thereby acquitting the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The learned APP submits that the delay occurred mainly because of paucity of time and non- availability of Steno and further for receiving approval from the Law and Judiciary Department. 2 6-APPA-542-2023.odt 3. The counsel for the respondent submits that delay is not properly explained. 4. We find that there occurred delay of 92 days, which is trivial and that the cause has been sufficiently explained saying that the Department took some time to approve the proposal of filing appeal coupled with the fact of paucity of time and non-availability of Steno. 5. The application is accordingly allowed. Delay is condoned. Application / Appeal be registered and processed as per rules. Application / Appeal : 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 03rd February, 2026. 3. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel h/f Mr. A.M. Chandekar, learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) MP Deshpande