SSM 1 10.appr.89.11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 490 OF 2010 Manohar Rajaram Chavan ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ____________ Shri. S. B. Shetye for Applicant. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for State. CORAM: A. R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 7 TH APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Present Criminal Application No. 89 of 2011 is preferred by original convicted accused for restoration of his earlier dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 490 of 2010. 2. Said Criminal Revision Petition was filed challenging the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2009 dated 11 th October, 2010. Said Criminal appeal was dismissed and judgment and order of conviction of the present Applicant was confirmed. Initially, in Criminal Case No. 418 of 2007, present Applicant/Accused was convicted vide order dated 11 th June, 2009 SSM 2 10.appr.89.11.doc by JMFC, Ratnagiri. Said conviction was for the offences punishable under Section 304­A, 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant offences under Motor Vehicle Act. 3. As mentioned above, present Applicant was convicted by JMFC and said conviction is upheld by First Appellate Court at Ratnagiri. Both the said concurrent findings were challenged in the present Criminal Revision Application No. 490 of 2010. Said Criminal Revision Application was taken before the another Bench (V. M. Kanade, J) and vide order dated 22 nd October, 2010 directions were given to the present Applicant to impaled the father of he deceased/victim and as such name of Respondent No. 2 was added. When said Criminal Revision was before another Bench (Mr. R. C. Chavan, J) vide order dated 12 th January, 2011 the Applicant was directed to furnish the correct address of Respondent No. 2 within four weeks and on failure the Revision Petition to stand dismissed without reference to the Court. Under these circumstances, on failure of the Applicant to furnish the SSM 3 10.appr.89.11.doc correct address of Respondent No. 2, Criminal Revision Applicatin No. 490 of 2010 stood automatically dismissed. 4. Now, the present Criminal Application No. 89 of 2011 is preferred for restoration of said dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 490 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the present application and after hearing the rival submissions, in the opinion of this Court, earlier dismissed Criminal Revision Application is required to be restored to the file as the Applicant has now produced the present correct address of Respondent No. 2. In the result, Criminal Application No. 89 of 2011 is allowed. Earlier dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 490 of 2010 is restored to the file with continuation of earlier grant of interim relief. Applicant to serve Respondent No. 2 on the recent address available with him. Applicant to supply such recent address to the office and office to issue independent notice to Respondent No.2. 5. Stand over to 28 th April, 2011. (A. R. JOSHI J.)