Bombay High Court

MaharashtraversusAnand Vasudeo Chavan and Anr

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL SANDESH DADASAHEB PATIL

Holding

The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application, permitting the appeal to be filed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of one year and 173 days to file an appeal against a Special Judge's order that acquitted the accused of IPC offences but convicted him under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The delay arose from procedural lags in obtaining certified copies and submissions by the public prosecutor and the Law & Judiciary Department. The High Court examined the reasons for the delay, noting that it was not intentional but caused by office procedures, and considered the seriousness of the child sexual offence. Despite reservations about the explanation, the Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was permitted to proceed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of one year and 173 days in filing an appeal under criminal procedure can be condoned.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 363, 366A, 376, 506(Part-II)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 12, 33(7), 4, 8

Subjects

condonation of delay
appeal
POCSO Act
criminal procedure
interim application
high court
child sexual offence

Judgment

                                                             20-IA-457-2025.doc




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Nashik Taluka Police Station,
Dist. Nashik)                                … Applicant
           Versus
1. Anand Vasudeo Chavan
Age 34 years, Occupation : Business,
Residing of : Sayyed Pimpri,
Taluka and Dist. Nashik.

2. (XYZ (victim)
(identity withheld as per Section 33(7) of
the POCSO Act)
Nashik Taluka Police Station,
Nashik. (CR No.I-44 of 2021)                              … Respondents
                             --------------------
Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P. for the Applicant.

None for the Respondents.
                                --------------------
                                CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                  SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                  DATE      : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.       By the present Interim Application, the Applicant is praying for

condonation of delay of one year and 173 days seeking leave to file an



Manisha                                                                    1/4
                                                         20-IA-457-2025.doc




Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 14/06/2023 passed by

the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and Addl. Session Judge, Nashik

in Special Case (POCSO) No. 244 of 2021 by which the learned Judge

had acquitted the Applicant for the offences under Sections 363,

366A, 376 and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Accused

was however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven

years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. He was also convicted for offence under

Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.



2.    This Court had after hearing the learned A.P.P. appearing for the

Applicant-State issued notice to the Respondents returnable on

11/12/2025. The Office Note shows that the Respondent No.1 is duly

served. None appears for the Respondent No.1 though served. The

learned A.P.P. states that the impugned Judgment and Order was

passed on 14/06/2023. The Application for certified copies was made

on 25/07/2024 and the same were ready on 20/08/2024. After scrutiny




Manisha                                                                2/4
                                                          20-IA-457-2025.doc




of the papers by the concerned Public Prosecutor, Nashik, vide his

letter dated 19/10/2024, he submitted papers to the Law & Judiciary

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Thereafter, upon scrutiny of the

papers by the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the

same was received by the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court

(A.S.), Mumbai on 05/11/2024. The present Application which is filed

on 04/12/2024, is thus belated by one year 173 days.



3.    Learned A.P.P. states that the delay which is caused in filing the

present Application is explained in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the

Application. She states that the delay is neither intentional nor

deliberate but for the reasons mentioned above.



4.    We have perused the Application. At the outset, we may state

that though we are not satisfied by the manner in which the delay was

explained, so also we are not satisfied by the manner in which the

delay is caused in preferring the present Application. Yet taking into

consideration the seriousness of the offence and further taking into




Manisha                                                                 3/4
                                                          20-IA-457-2025.doc




consideration the fact that the delay was caused due to office

procedure, we are of the view that, it is fit to condone the said delay.

The delay is accordingly condoned.



5.    In view of above, the Interim Application No.457 of 2025 is

allowed and disposed of as such.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                      (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)




Manisha                                                                 4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…