Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PUSHPA KRUSHNA JADHAVversusLALIT BALARAM MHATRE AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court condoned the 468‑day delay in filing the appeal, subject to payment of costs.

Summary

The applicant, Pushpa K. Jadhav, a senior citizen and victim of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, sought to file an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, which had acquitted the respondents. She filed the appeal 468 days after the appellate judgment, citing lack of awareness, health ailments, and surgery as reasons for the delay. The respondents contested the condonation, arguing that the delay was inordinate and intended to harass them. The Court examined whether the reasons amounted to sufficient cause to condone such a long delay. Finding that the applicant’s circumstances warranted leniency, the Court allowed the interim application, condoning the delay subject to a cost of Rs.5,000. Consequently, the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission upon payment of the costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 468 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under procedural law
  • Whether the applicant’s health and lack of awareness constitute sufficient cause for the delay
  • Whether the appeal should be admitted after condonation of delay

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • criminal appeal
  • Section 420 IPC
  • senior citizen
  • procedural law
  • costs
  • interim application

Judgment

         Digitally
         signed by
         DINESH
DINESH   SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA   Date:
         2026.10.01
         18:56:23                                                                   2-ia-3521-25.odt
         +0530




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3521 OF 2025
                                                          IN
                                            APPEAL (ST) NO. 19124 OF 2025

                      Pushpa K. Jadhav                            …Appellant/Applicant
                            V/s.
                      Lalit B. Mhatre & Ors.                           ...Respondents.

                                                  …………..
                      Ms Sharmila K Deshmukh for the Appellant/Applicant.
                      Mr. N.B. Sawant for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                      Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                                  …………..

                                                     CORAM        :    N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                                     DATE         :    01.10.2026.
                      P.C. :

                      1.       This is an application for condonation of delay of 468 days in
                      filing appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2024
                      passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal
                      Appeal No. 177 of 2019, by which the learned Additional Sessions
                      Judge has allowed the appeal, which was filed by respondent
                      Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and order of the trial Court
                      convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 420 of
                      the Indian Penal Code.


                      2.        I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the
                      learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned APP for
                      respondent No.3/State.




                      Dinesh S. Sherla                      1/3
                                                                    2-ia-3521-25.odt


3.       Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the
applicant, who is the victim in the above case, was not aware that
she can file an appeal against the judgment and order of the
appellate court acquitting respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is further
submitted that the applicant is the senior citizen and is suffering
from various health related ailments and had undergone surgery
in February 2025. It is submitted that thus the delay of 468 days
occurred in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay is not
deliberate and the same be condoned.


4.       On        the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   contesting
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the reasons assigned by the
applicant do not constitute sufficient cause. It is submitted that
the appeal has been filed only with a view to harass respondent
Nos.1 and 2. It is thus submitted that inordinate delay of 468 days
may not be condoned.


5.       For the reasons stated in the application and as the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were initially convicted by the trial Court
which is reversed by the appellate court, I am inclined to condone
the delay, subject to payment of costs. In the result, the following
is order is passed.


                                     ORDER


A]       The Interim Application is allowed.




Dinesh S. Sherla                           2/3
                                                               2-ia-3521-25.odt


B]       The delay of 468 days in filing an appeal is condoned,
subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.


C]       The applicant shall deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/- with
Kirtikar Law Library within a period of 3 weeks from today.


D]       If the amount of costs is paid, the Registry shall list Criminal
Appeal (St) No.19124 of 2025 for admission on 26.10.2026. If the
same is not paid, the Interim Application shall stand dismissed
without further reference to the Court.

                                                [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Dinesh S. Sherla                       3/3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.