Bombay High Court

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITEDversusRAMOJI RAO AND ORS.

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the 90‑day delay is condoned as sufficient cause was shown, and the leave‑to‑appeal application is allowed.

Summary

The applicant, Sneha Nitin Chavan, the original complainant in a criminal case under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 34 of the IPC, filed a leave‑to‑appeal application 90 days after the order of acquittal. The respondents argued that the delay was not properly explained. The court examined the explanation given in paragraph 11 of the application and found it sufficient to constitute a valid reason for the delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025), the court held that a complainant/victim may seek leave to appeal. Consequently, the court condoned the 90‑day delay, allowed the application, and disposed of the criminal application.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 90 days in filing a leave‑to‑appeal application challenging an acquittal can be condoned.
Whether the original complainant/victim is entitled to file a leave‑to‑appeal under the principles laid down in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 499, 500, 501, 502

Subjects

condonation of delay
leave to appeal
criminal procedure
acquittal
victim as appellant
IPC sections 499-502

Judgment

                                                                           13-APPP-251-2019.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2019
                                                     IN
                           APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) (ST) NO. 65 OF 2019
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN                United Phosphorus Limited                                 ...Applicant
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
                                Versus
Date: 2026.08.21
19:09:00 +0530        Ramoji Rao And Ors.                                       ...Respondents

                                                      ****
                      Ms. Keral Mehta a/w Ms. Sharda Pandey with Prashant Nakati for the
                      Applicant.
                      Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Respondent/State.
                      Ms. Vidya Amlani for Respondent No.4.
                                                      ****

                                                    CORAM :      M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                      DATE :     21st AUGUST, 2026

                      P.C. :
                                            Criminal Application No. 251 of 2019
                      1.             Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for
                      the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that due to some technical issue,
                      her vakalatnama filed for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is not reflecting in the
                      record.
                      2.             This is an application for condonation of delay of 90 days in
                      filing leave application challenging an order of acquittal. The Applicant
                      is original complainant.
                      3.             Learned Counsel for the Respondents relying on the reply
                      contending that the delay is not properly explained.
                      4.             Considering the extent of delay and explanation offered in
                      paragraph 11 of the application, sufficient cause is made out.
                      Application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
                      5.             Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms.


                      Sneha Chavan                                                                1
                                                     13-APPP-251-2019.doc



     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (PVT.) (ST) NO. 65 OF 2019


6.             Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v/s. A. Gnanasekaran
Etc. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, would cover the present Appellant also
as it is complainant / victim in Complaint under Section 499, 500, 501,
502 read with Section 34 of IPC.
7.             Learned Counsel for the Respondents seeks time to respond.
8.             Stand over to 04.09.2026 for further consideration.




                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…