Bombay High Court

Surekha Subhash ChavanversusThe State of Maharashtra

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

A delay of one month and twenty‑four days can be condoned if reasonable cause, such as a medical injury, is established, and the revision application was allowed.

Summary

Surekha Subhash Chavan, the original accused, filed a criminal revision seeking condonation of a one‑month‑and‑24‑day delay in filing an appeal against her conviction for a cheque‑bounce case. She claimed that a right‑knee injury, treated at Prakash Hospital, prevented timely filing and submitted medical documents to support her claim. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the condonation, stating that day‑to‑day delay must be explained and noting the five‑year duration of the trial as a factor. On revision, the High Court examined the medical evidence, the nature of the delay, and the principle that reasonable cause can justify a short delay, concluding that the delay was condonable. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the earlier miscellaneous application was set aside, and the criminal appeal was ordered to be numbered and heard on merits. The court also noted an amicable settlement offer of Rs 1,50,000, which the complainant declined, but this did not affect the decision on condonation.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of one month and twenty‑four days in filing a criminal appeal can be condoned under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the appellant's medical injury constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

Subjects

condonation of delay
criminal appeal
revision
medical evidence
cheque bounce
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

906-27-25-revn.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 27 OF 2025

Surekha Subhash Chavan ....Applicant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra and anr ....Respondents

Mr. Ramdas Shelke a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Shelake, advocate for the
Applicant
Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar, advocate for Respondent No.2

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :

1. The present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the

original accused person challenging the judgment and order dated

3 December 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Islampur, in Other Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of

2024, thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay
IRESH
MASHAL

Digitally signed
in filing the appeal against conviction.
by IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.09.11
19:12:30
+0530

2. The delay was of 1 month and 24 days in filing the criminal

appeal against conviction before the Sessions Court. In the

application, it was the case of the Applicant that because of an

injury to the right knee, the Applicant was treated in Prakash

Hospital, Islampur, and therefore it was not possible for her to file

1 of 4
Iresh
906-27-25-revn.doc

the appeal in time. The medical papers of Prakash Hospital,

Islampur, were brought on record.

3. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe the case of the

Applicant that due to the fall on the right knee, the Applicant was

not able to file the appeal in time. The Court, while rejecting the

application, came to a finding that it is a settled law that day-to-day

delay must be explained. The Court also considered that it took five

years for the trial to be completed before the Trial Court, and hence

held that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

4. While this matter was argued before me, since the dispute

arises out of a cheque bouncing case and the amount of the cheque

being only of ₹1,10,000/-, the counsel before me made a request to

consider the request of the accused of settling the matter amicably.

The Advocate for the accused put forward an offer of ₹1,50,000/-,

without prejudice to the rights and contentions, to be paid to the

Complainant as a full and final settlement amount for a

dishonoured cheque of ₹1,10,000/-.

5. The Advocate appearing for the Complainant, in response,

after taking instructions from his client, submitted that his client is

2 of 4
906-27-25-revn.doc

not ready to settle the dispute for an amount of ₹1,50,000/-.

6. Hence, I heard the parties on merits.

7. The Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2-original

Complainant, has strongly opposed the Criminal Revision

Application on the ground that the impugned order passed by the

Sessions Court has considered all the documents on record,

including the medical reports furnished by the accused, and hence

the Criminal Revision Application should be dismissed.

8. After hearing the parties and after going through the contents

of the Criminal Revision Application, the impugned order and the

annexures to it in the form of medical papers, I am convinced that

the delay of 1 month and 24 days could have been condoned by the

Sessions Court in the Criminal Appeal.

9. In view of the same, Criminal Revision Application stands

allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

10. Other Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2024

filed before the District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge,

Islampur, District Sangli, stands allowed.

3 of 4
Iresh
906-27-25-revn.doc

11. The Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction judgment

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Islampur in S.C.C. No.

68 of 2019 be numbered and heard on merits.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…