Bombay High Court

SANTOSH KORVAversusSTATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The Court condoned the 322‑day delay and allowed the appeal to be registered.

Summary

Santosh Korva, convicted under IPC sections 363, 376, 506(2) and POCSO Act sections 4, 8, 12, filed a criminal appeal 322 days after the judgment while incarcerated. He applied for condonation of the delay, claiming ignorance of the law and inability to obtain legal advice due to his imprisonment. The State opposed, arguing that ignorance of law is not a valid ground for condonation. The Court examined the statutory right to appeal under the CrPC and the applicant’s circumstances, and held that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the application was allowed and the appeal was ordered to be registered.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 322 days in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned
Whether ignorance of law and inability to obtain counsel constitute sufficient cause for condonation

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 363, 376, 506(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

condonation of delay
criminal appeal
statutory right to appeal
IPC
POCSO Act
CrPC
ignorance of law
prisoner rights

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1251
                                              1 CRMA 90 2026

                Suzana

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                         CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2026
                                         WITH
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.553 OF 2026 (F)
                      CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2026
                                        IN
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.553 OF 2026 (F)
           SANTOSH KORVA                              ... APPLICANT
             Versus
           STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC
           PROSECUTOR AND ANR                         ... RESPONDENTS
                                       WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.553 OF 2026 (F)
           SANTOSH KORVA                              ... APPELLANT
             Versus
           STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC
           PROSECUTOR AND ANR                         ... RESPONDENTS

           Mr. Salil Lawande, Advocate for the Applicant.
           Mr. Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

                                  CORAM:- HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                  DATED :- 2nd July, 2026

           ORAL ORDER:


           1.       The present application is filed for condonation of delay in filing
           the Criminal Appeal. The Application states that there is a delay of
           almost 322 days in filing the present Criminal Appeal. The Applicant
           is in jail on account of the sentence imposed on the Applicant under
           Sections 363, 376 and 506(2) of the IPC and under Sections 4, 8 and
           12 of the POCSO Act. The reasons stated in the present Application at
           paragraph 5 is that the Applicant was unfamiliar with the law of appeal

                                                 Page 1 of 3
                                                2nd July, 2026
                                   1 CRMA 90 2026


after his conviction and was uncertain about the procedure to be
followed after being convicted.


2.    The Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that
the Applicant is a poor labourer and he genuinely did not know the
remedy available to him against the impugned Judgment and Order
convicting him.     He further submits that as the Applicant was
immediately taken in custody and he was lodged in prison, he was
unable to contact him to take any legal advice. He further submits that
the brother of the Applicant contacted the present Advocate on
telephone and thereafter the remedy was informed and the decision to
file present Appeal was taken. He, therefore, submits that the delay
caused of 322 days in filing of the present application is bonafidely
explained and therefore the delay deserves to be condoned.


3.       Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State though
technically opposes the application on the ground that the defence
raised by the Applicant in the application about ignorance of law
cannot be taken as a valid ground for condonation of the delay caused
in filing of the present Appeal.


3.     I have heard both the Advocates and have also considered the
application.   The Applicant is admittedly lodged in prison and is
undergoing the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court. The
present Criminal Appeal is a statutory right granted to the present

                                      Page 2 of 3
                                     2nd July, 2026
                                                    1 CRMA 90 2026


                   Applicant in the CrPC and therefore, it cannot be taken away merely
                   because there is delay caused in lodging of the Appeal. I am satisfied
                   that the Applicant has made out a case for condonation of delay of 322
                   days in preferring the present Criminal Appeal.      Accordingly, the
                   delay of 322 days stands condoned. The Application is disposed of as
                   allowed. The Registry is directed to register the Criminal Appeal.


                   4.      List the Criminal Appeal on 24.07.2026.



                                                          HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.




Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
                                                       Page 3 of 3
Date: 02/07/2026 13:01:38
                                                      2nd July, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…