Bombay High Court

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPRAVIN YESHWANT SHIMPI

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the delay of over one year was not properly explained and therefore condonation was not granted.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of about one year and seven days in filing a leave to appeal against an acquittal order under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State claimed the delay was explained, while the accused contended that the prosecutor’s prolonged request to the Law and Judiciary Department and the subsequent loss of papers were not adequately justified. The court examined the timeline, noting a four‑month gap before the prosecutor’s request and a further seven‑month period during which the case files were reportedly untraceable. Finding the explanations vague and lacking material particulars, the court held that the delay was not properly explained. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the leave to appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of more than one year in filing a leave to appeal can be condoned without a satisfactory explanation.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 13(1)(d), 13(2), 7

Subjects

condonation of delay
leave to appeal
acquittal
Prevention of Corruption Act
criminal procedure
procedural delay
appeal dismissed

Judgment

                                                                        21-IA-3499-2024.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3499 OF 2024
                                                     WITH
                        APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) (ST) NO. 12389 OF 2024

SNEHA              The State of Maharashtra                          ...Applicant
NITIN
CHAVAN                   Versus
Digitally signed   Pravin Yeshwant Shimpi                            ...Respondent
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.09.04
11:27:51 +0530                                      ***
                   Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Applicant-State.
                   Ms. Meera Bagwe (thru VC) for Respondent.
                                                   ****

                                                 CORAM :      M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                   DATE :     03 SEPTEMBER, 2026

                   P.C. :


                   1.             Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application
                   by State seeking condonation of delay of about 1 year and 7 days in
                   filing leave application.
                   2.             Learned APP submits that delay is properly explained in the
                   application.
                   3.             On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent
                   (accused) relying on the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 25.08.2026 has
                   opposed the application, contending inter alia that the time spent by the
                   Prosecutor to send a request to the Law and Judiciary Department is not
                   explained properly.        She submitted that even after the Government
                   Resolution was issued, it is simply stated that papers were not traceable
                   for many months.
                   4.             I have perused the averments in the application as well as the
                   reply.



                   Sneha Chavan                                                               1
                                                     21-IA-3499-2024.doc



5.             The impugned order of acquittal holds that alleged offence
punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6.             The impugned order was passed in February 2023. Certified
copies were obtained in March 2023. As per application, last date for
filing the leave application was 26.05.2023.
7.             In such circumstances, no explanation is offered as to why the
office of the Prosecutor took long time of 4 months to send request
further to Law and Judiciary Department on 05.08.2023. Also, after the
Government Resolution was issued on 18.10.2023 and the papers were
received by the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Appellate
Side on 23.10.2023 and assigned for drafting on 25.10.2023, the papers
are stated to be not traceable for over 7 months till 06.06.2024. There is
no explanation regarding delay from 25.10.2023 till 06.06.2024, when
the papers are s7981imply stated to be traced. The Applicant/State has
a full fledged entire machinery at its disposal and therefore, such
explanations offered in routine manner, without material particulars
and clear reasons cannot be accepted.
8.             In that view of the matter, long delay of more than 1 year is
not properly explained. Accordingly, prayer for delay condonation is
rejected. Application is rejected. In view of the rejection of delay
condonation application, nothing survives in the leave-application and
the same is also rejected.


                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                               2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…