All Civil Appeal

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2006 The State Of Maharashtra ....Appellant V/S Gangaram Baburao Jagtap ....Respondent Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, A.P.P. For Appellant Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i.b. Mr. S.A.Sawant For Respondent CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM, J DATE : 5th March, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1, Stand over to 06/03/2020. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.94 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ) ….Appellant/Complainant V/s. Gangaram Baburao Jagtap Age 45 years., Occ.: Talathi R/o. Fatyapur, Taluka & District – Satara ) ) ) .….Respondent/Accused ---- Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for State – Appellant. Mr. Heramb S. Kadam i/b. Mr. S.A. Sawant for respondent. CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 6th MARCH 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 19th October 2004 passed by the Special Judge for Anti Corruption, Satara, acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2 Complainant Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde (PW-1) had purchased some agricultural land. After about 8-9 months, further agricultural land was purchased in his brother's name. A week thereafter, PW-1 gave a photocopy of the sale deed and relevant documents to accused, who was the Talathi of the village Venegaon and requested him to mutate the name of his younger brother in 7/12 register. Accused, however, avoided doing the same on one ground or the other and on 16th October 1999, when PW-1 met him, accused told him that he has to give Rs.1000/- on 20th October 1999 at Tahasil office, Satara. PW-1 realised that unless the bribe amount was given, the work will not be done and therefore, decided to approach the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). PW-1 then lodged the complaint with PW-4 – Vidhyadhar Shete, the Investigating Officer and after complying with the pre-trap formalities, the A.C.B. office, Satara, decided to trap accused on 20th October 1999. Complainant and PW-3, the panch witness, met accused on 20th October 1999 and complainant gave Rs.1000/ tainted currency to accused, who accepted it with his right hand and put it in his pocket on the right side of his pant. Thereafter, PW-1 gave the agreed signal, the raiding team swooped and PW-4 caught the wrist of accused. Under ultraviolet light, the hand of accused was examined and so also the pocket and anthracene marks were found. Post-trap panchnama was prepared, investigation commenced and after obtaining sanction from the Sub Divisional Officer – Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate (PW-2), complaint was filed. Once the further investigation was over and statements were recorded, chargesheet was filed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 To prove its case, prosecution led evidence of four witnesses as against 16 witnesses listed in the chargesheet. No independent witness was examined. The four witnesses are Ramchandra Dadasaheb Shinde, complainant (PW-1); Kanhuraj Harichandra Bagate, Sub Divisional Officer (PW-2); Sambhaji Bhausaheb Budhawale, panch witness (PW-3); and Vidhyadhar Bharma Shete, Investigating Officer (PW-4). Gauri Gaekwad 4 The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P. 1 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under: The following principles emerge from the cases above: The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; 1 . (2008) 10 SCC 450 iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court. 2 . (2014) 5 SCC 730 The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat 3 has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. 5 Demand and acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is the crux of a bribery case. Besides, Section 7 of the PC Act lays down that agreement to accept or the acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is to be the motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in exercise of his official functions any favour or disfavour to any person, i.e, complainant. We will have to scrutinize the evidence on record and see if accused had made demand for Rs.1000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from complainant for mutating the name of his brother in the revenue record against the agricultural land which they had purchased under a conditional sale deed or the amount was given to him for the purpose of stamp papers and payment of registration fee etc. 3 . 1996 SCC (cri) 972 6 In the first place, it has to be noted that PW-1 in his complaint as well as in his deposition, has stated that photocopies of sale deed relating to his younger brother were given to accused for effecting mutation. But in the documents seized, no such photocopies were available. Secondly, which is really fatal to prosecution's case is that complainant alleged that on 16th October 1999, when he met accused, accused made demand of Rs.1000/- as bribe. It has come on record that between 15th October 1999 and 26th October 1999 accused was on medical leave. The entries made in the service book of accused shows that accused was on leave from 15th October 1999 to 26th October 1999 on medical grounds. There is no evidence to show that during his medical leave, accused came to the office on 16th October 1999. Therefore, prosecution's case that PW-1 met accused on 16th October 1999, when accused demanded Rs.1000/- for making the mutation entry, is not believable. 7 One more point is that even the application moved by complainant for making the mutation entry is not coming forth. PW-2, the sanctioning authority, has in his cross examination stated that he came to know that the requisite mutation entry was made by accused and he also came to know that after some months of making that entry, complainant had given his complaint in A.C.B. office, Satara. PW-2 also says that the Revenue Circle Officer has to take decision within 8 days after service of notices on the interested parties and 7/12 extract cannot be issued by the Talathi unless the entry is certified by Revenue Circle Officer. PW-2 further says that the job 7 / 9 413.Apeal-94-2006.doc of Talathi comes to an end after taking entry and effecting the service of the notices on the concerned person and in the instant case, PW-2 had found that Talathi (accused) had made entry, effected service of notices and had sent the matter to Revenue Circle Officer for certification. Therefore, there was nothing left to be done by accused. Interestingly, PW-2 says after he read the documents, he felt suspicious about the genuineness of complaint lodged by PW-1 against accused. PW-2 also says he thought over whether permission for prosecution has to be granted and PW-2 required to be protected. Nevertheless, PW-2 went ahead and granted the sanction. 8 These are grounds alongwith many other which have been recorded in the judgment impugned which prevailed over the Trial Court to pass the order of acquittal. For the sake of brevity, I am not reproducing those points but certainly those points have the approval of this Court. 9 Even for a moment we accept that there was a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, the same is a rebuttable presumption and the burden placed on accused for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. 10 Paragraph 11 of State of Gujarat V/s. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors. 4 reads as under : So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI Cochin, High Court of 4 . (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242 Keralar (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court held as under:- "21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the offence could rebut it either through the crossexamination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence....… It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt..." Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe." 11 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. 12 In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, need not be interfered with. 13 Appeal dismissed. 14 The Government/Appropriate Authority shall pay over to respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other Gauri Gaekwad benefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. If during the service, in view of this matter, the promotions or increments of accused have been affected, the concerned Authority/Department will pay, proceed and calculate on the basis that there was no such matter ever on record against accused and will factor in all promotions and increments that accused would have been entitled to and all the amounts shall be accordingly paid within 30 days. After 30 days interest at 12% p.a. will have to be paid by Government/ Appropriate Authority to respondent. No authority shall demand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above. All to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14060 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14058 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER LODGING NO . 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent Mr Swanand Ganoo a/w Mr Amit Mehta i/b Mahimtura And Company For Applicant Mr Vijay Thorat Sr Adv a/w Mr Vaibhav Sugdare i/b chitnis & Co. for Resp NO.1 Mr Sanjay Jain a/w Mr Jigar Dedhia i/b L.D. shah and Co for Resp NO.4 CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J DATE : 16th July, 2018 P.C. : By consent, Stand Over to 30/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14060 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN AO STAMP NO. 14058 OF 2018 In APPEAL FROM ORDER LODGING NO . 14057 OF 2018 Mr. Suresh Damji Shah And Anr ....Applicant V/S Buddha Co-operative Housing Society Limited And Ors ....Respondent Mr.Swanand Ganoo i/by Mahimtura And Company For Applicant. Mr.Vijaysinh A.Thorat,Sr.Counsel a/w Vaibhav Sugdare i/by L.D.Shah & Co.,For R.No.4. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by Chitnis & Co., For R.No.1. Mr.Preet Chheda, For R.No.2, 3a and 3b. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J DATE : 11th December, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 11.01.2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2004 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST.NO.21588 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5247 OF 1989 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.,& ors. ..Applicants V/s. Engineering Workers' Association & Anr..Respondents Mr.G.B.Shetty i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the applicants. Ms.Bina Dholakia for Respondents. Coram : R.M.LODHA & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 30.3.2005. PC . Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The Respondent no.2 is the formal party. There is delay of 18 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. The cause for delay is set out in paragraph-1(c) of the application. The respondent no.1 has not objection if delay is condoned. We accordingly, grant Civil application in terms of prayer clause-(a). : 2 : Prayer clause-(a) reads thus :- That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the present Appeal. Civil application stands disposed of. (R.M.LODHA,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 ..... Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ..Appellant. versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale , Addl.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. 3rd July, 2015. P.C. : The Appellant to remove the office objections within a period of three weeks from today. Stand over to 24th July, 2015. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** None for the Appellant Mr. N. B. Patil - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2023 P. C. :- None present for the contesting parties, even though matter is fixed for final hearing. Matter be kept on 09th March, 2023 under the caption 'for direction'. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 10: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.03.13 14:28:18 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Sandip Kagade i/b. Mr.Anand Patil, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia – APP for the Respondent No.2-State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : th 9 MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- Learned Advocate Shri.Anand Patil is busy before some other Court. The Court of JMFC has acquitted the Accused by invoking the powers of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C."] as per the order dated 26th December, 2012. It is for not taking steps by the Complainant. Matter be kept on 16th March, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr. S. R. Ghanavat i/by Mr. Anand S. Patil - Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- As learned Advocate Shri Anand S. Patil is busy before some other Court, adjournment is sought. Matter be kept on 18th April, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 15: Tauseef 12-APEAL.16.2015.doc Digitally Date: 2023.04.25 12:10:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale …Appellant Versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18th APRIL, 2023 P.C. Mentioned out of turn. Learned Advocate for the Appellant seeks accommodation. The Appeal is already admitted. Matter be kept on 14 th June, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 17: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2023.07.28 00:34:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale Age 56 years, Occupation-Business R/o 2114, "E" Ward, Kawala Naka Kolhapur ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle Age 36 years, Occupation-Business R/o 823, "E" Ward, Line Bazar, Kolhapur … State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 18TH JULY 2023 JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant-complainant. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent-accused. Issue involved in this Appeal is as under : "Whether power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at post evidence stage when accused remained absent ?" 10.a16.2015.odt The appeal was already admitted on 5th December 2014. The action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. The Farad Sheet dated 6th June 2023, mentions that Respondent No.1-accused has furnished surety of Rs.10,000/- on 30th June 2015. However, no one has appeared in this Appeal. It is travesty of justice, that appeal involving trifle issue remained pending for eight years. Reasons may be different. Perused the impugned order dated 26th December 2012, passed by 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.4161 of 2006. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by taking recourse to Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this order came to be passed, the matter was fixed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was filed in the year 2006 bearing SCC No.4161/06. Roznama indicates accused was in the habit of avoiding process of this Court. The following are the important dates :- January 2007 Process was issued. 17/08/2010 Non bailable warrant issued as accused remained absent. 23/03/2001 Accused produced in execution of Non bailable warrant Application for bail Plea recorded 24/03/2011 Accused released on bail. 30/03/2011 Evidence of complainant. 7/04/2011 No cross order. Close pursis. Adjourned for statement under Section 313 of the Code. 14/07/2011 Non bailable warrant issued 1/02/2012 Cash surety forfeited Issued non bailable warrant. 30/10/2012 Non bailable warrant issued through Superintendent of Police 26/12/2012 Complaint dismissed for want of taking steps. So from events what transpires is as follows :- (a) The complaint is pending since 2006. (b) Accused has no respect for law. (c) He has not responded to Court summons earlier to plea and thereafter also. (d) Trial Court was required to issue non bailable warrant on various occasions. (e) Prior to recording of plea, non bailable warrant was served and Respondent-accused was released on cash bail. (f) Non bailable warrant could not be served even through Superintendent of Police. On this background, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 15th Court, Kolhapur passed an order dated 26/12/2012 thereby acquitting the Respondent-accused by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate noted following facts in the order :- (a) The complainant was absent persistently on 15/06/2012, 4/08/2012, 25/09/2012 and on 30/10/2012 (para 2). (b) Report of Superintendent of Police indicates that accused was outside his house (para 3). (c) Complainant has not taken steps under Section 82, 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (para 4). Now the question is whether it was appropriate for the learned Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we read those provisions, we may find the following ingredients :- (a) Case is fixed for hearing. (b) Complainant is absent. (c) His presence is required. (d) Court does not feel it necessary to adjourn the matter. Then only complaint can be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand 1 , has dealt with this issue. The purpose is to check the dilatory tactics of the complainant, principle of speedy trial is recognised. 9. However, if the entire facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is reason to believe that the learned Magistrate has hastily passed that order. It is a matter of record that accused has no respect to the law. And on every occasion, the complainant was 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 10.a16.2015.odt required to take steps. Execution of non bailable warrant is not an easy formality. At the same time, it is also true that unchallenged evidence could not have been used by the trial Court unless it was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, trial Court ought to have given weightage to the fact that patience of complainant was tested every time. If it is so, the trial Court waited and could have given direction to the complainant to take steps. The judgment of acquittal need not be interfered rightly. But the power under Section 256 of the Code should not be exercised only for the purpose of disposing of the cases. Trial Court has not considered the efforts taken by the complainant every time to secure presence of the complainant. The order deserves to be set aside. Certain directions for speedy disposal are required as the complaint is pending since 2006. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :- O R D E R (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The order passed by the Court of 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur dated 26th December 2012, is set aside. Shiv 6/7 The complaint is restored to file. (c) The complainant is directed to appear before the 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur on 28th July 2023, at 11 am and is directed to take necessary steps. (d) Once the Respondent appears, the trial Court is directed to keep the matter on day-to-day basis. [S. M. MODAK, J.]