1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2325 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.263 OF 2006 Kocharya s/o Khatrya Walvi ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.P. Raje, Advocate holding for Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of about 17 days in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Application against the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar in S.T.C.C. No.2091/2004 on 13.4.2006, acquitting the respondent No.2 from the charges under 2 sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the aforesaid judgment and order, he waited for a period of two months with the hope that prosecution i.e. respondent No.1 herein will prefer an appeal against the said order of acquittal. However, he lost the hopes that the respondent No.1 would prefer appeal against the said judgment and order. Hence, he approached the Advocate for filing the appropriate proceedings in the High Court against the said judgment and order of acquittal. The applicant also applied for certified copies of the judgment and order which were received on 4.7.2006. Thereafter the applicant required some time to make the arrangement for payment of expenditure and Advocate’s fees which resulted in 17 days delay in filing the present Revision Application, and prayed that same be condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. It is further submitted that the applicant has not accounted for everyday 3 delay and, therefore, the present application is required to be dismissed. 5. Considering the rival submissions, the reasons put forth by the applicant for the delay in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Application appear to be sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. 6. Besides that, it also appears that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Application is not willful, deliberate and inordinate and, therefore, same is required to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay of 17 days caused in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Application stands condoned and accompanying Criminal Revision Application be registered and numbered and be fixed for admission in due course. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri2325.06