Aurangabad: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court has rejected an application made by a murder convict seeking condonation of delay of 11,611 days to file an application challenging the Nanded sessions court verdict sentencing him to life imprisonment in 1986.The convict, Nandu Maniram Mandrawale, had approached the high court citing ignorance about the statutory right to file appeal.Representing the convict (60), his lawyer Monica Dahat argued that “There was nobody to take care of him and he was not aware of his statutory right to file appeal against conviction, so he did not file appeal in time.’’The convict also contended that “when he learnt about the right, he sent a letter to this court and then as per court direction, the proceeding is filed earlier this year”.The bench comprising Justices T V Nalawade and Vibha Kankanwadi, who pronounced the judgement on October 17, also noted the contention of additional public prosecutor S J Salgare, who strongly opposed the application.The prosecution pointed out that the incident (murder) had taken place on September 15, 1985 and an offence was registered against Mandrawale on the basis of the dying declaration of the victim. However, he could be arrested on May 9, 1986, that too when he was declared absconding and order of attachment of property was issued. Following the trial, he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1986.The prosecution argued: “The applicant was undergoing the sentence, when he was granted parole dated November 18,1989 for 15 days. He was expected to surrender on December 4, 1989, but he did not surrender and was absconding till he was arrested on July 10, 2015.”The prosecution pointed out that a separate case was also registered against Mandrawale. “Delay of around 31 years is caused in filing the proceedings and no proper or acceptation explanation is given by the applicant,” argued Salgare.The bench stated: “When he was granted parole, he again absconded and for about 30 years was not available. In such cases, the court cannot take a liberal view. If the liberal view is taken in such case, it will be against the public policy on which law of limitation is founded. In such case, liberal view will defeat the very purpose of limitation.”The court also observed that “inordinate delay in such case plays important role and due to that the court is not expected to use the discretionary power.”While rejecting the order, the bench observed “this court holds that the application filed for condonation of delay cannot be allowed.”

Stay updated with all the Latest Aurangabad headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.