1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 2055/2008 in Criminal Revision No. 86/2009 Vinayak Chandrashekhar Deshmukh ..vs.. Vijay Gopal Deshmukh & ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D. A. Sonwane, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for non applicant nos. 1 to 7. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 30 th JULY, 2009. 1. The applicant had filed First Information Report in connection with the offence on the basis of which criminal complaint against non applicant nos. 1 to 7 came to be filed before Judicial Magistrate first Class, namely Criminal Case No. 52/194. Non applicant nos. 1 to 7 came to be acquitted by order dated 02.02.2006 of all the charges, for which they had to face the trial. As the applicant has launched the F.I.R. he felt interested in challenging the order of acquittal as aforesaid. He had applied for certified copy of the order and got the same on 28.02.2006. Thereafter, he should have filed the revision within the period of limitation. However, he filed the revision in February-2008 that is to say there was delay of 758 days in filing the revision. 2 2. Non applicant nos. 1 and 2 have opposed this application and I have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides. According to the applicant, during the period from 24.04.2006 to 03.01.2008, he was suffering from Cervical Spondylosis with vertigo. As such, according to him, during this period, he could not leave the house and that is how he could not file revision application before this Court. It is also the stand of applicant that he was advised to take bed rest and also to avoid long journey. He pointed out that his place of residence is 250 Km. away from Nagpur. For all these reasons, he prayed for condonation of delay. 3. Mr. Mardikar, Advocate for non applicant nos. 1 to 7, had submitted that the applicant was attending to certain court cases during the period in which he claims that he was not keeping well. This fact has been admitted by the applicant in the additional affidavit-in-reply. The applicant had in support of the stand that the delay should be condoned, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. ..vs.. Mst. Katiji and 3 ors; AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down certain principles on the basis of which the Courts have to attend to the applications for condonation of delay. The leaned Advocate for the applicant has also relied upon judgment in the case of Nilesh Vijay Deshmukh & another ..vs.. Mathurabai Bhikanrao Deshmukh deceased thr. LRs. Arun Vijayrao Deshmukh; 2005 (4) Mh. L. J. 481. 4. I have perused the judgments. Considering the facts of this case and judgments cited above, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case whether the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant for the purpose of condonation of delay and the reasons are given below. 5. The applicant is complainant in the matter. He had received certified copy of the judgment in time. The reasons put forth by the applicant that he was suffering from Cervical spondylosis and vertigo is supported by medical certificate issued by Doctor. However, admission the behalf of the applicant that during the period of his sickness, covered by medical certificate, he was attending 4 to the cases in other places, goes to falsify the stand of the applicant that he was unable to attend to the matter. Even otherwise, the delay is not for a few days. The delay is for about two years. The reasons put forth by the applicant cannot be considered as adequate because it was possible for applicant to brief the lawyer at Nagpur even by staying at his place. 6. It is pertinent to note that against the order of acquittal, State of Maharashtra has not filed any appeal. This will go to show that appropriate Department of the State of Maharashtra has applied its mind and has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is just and does not deserve to be challenged in the higher Court. 7. In view of above, there is no merit in the application. The same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the order. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As the delay is not condoned, Criminal Revision No.86/2009 cannot be entertained and is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE