1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3070 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3069 OF 2000 Mr.A.C.Narayanan & Anr. ..Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents. Mr.C.M.Lokesh i/b. B.S.Hegade & Associates for applicants. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. S.A.Jabbar for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2. These are applications for restoration of Criminal Application Nos. 3070 of 2000 and 3069 of 2000, which are dismissed for want of prosecution. However, these applications are vehemently opposed by Mr.S.A.Jabbar. Learned Counsel relying the on the Judgment of Apex Court in Vareed Jacob vs. Sosamma Geevarghese & ors.[(2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 378) submits that since by the order dated 8/12/2009, this 2 Court has also vacated all the interim relief granted in the matter, the order of restoration simplicitor will not revive the interim orders passed earlier. 3. The Apex Court in the aforesaid matter, which was pertaining to dismissal of suit has observed that, if the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution and thereafter, it is restored, the question as to whether the Interim orders passed in the suit shall stand revived, will depend upon the terms while dismissing the suit and restoring the said suit. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the application came to be dismissed on account of difficulty of the Counsel, Criminal Applications are restored to file, as per their position, on the date, on which they came to be dismissed. Needless to say that Interim order shall also stand restored. (B.R.GAVAI,J)