((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3413 OF 2008 Damodar Krishnaji @ Balasaheb Majgaonkar Applicant versus Chintamani Shridhar Tamboli and another Respondents V.B.Rajure for applicant. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. Rohan Sonawane for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th February 2009 PC : 1. Heard advocate for the applicant and the advocate for the first respondent. The Advocate for the first respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He stated that there is absolutely no explanation given for the delay of more than 246 days. He stated that the entire blame has been shifted by the applicant on his advocate and the applicant himself is negligent. 2. The complaint filed by the applicant has ((-2-)) been dismissed in exercise of powers under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the present application the applicant has given reasons in paragraphs 3 and 4 for his absence. Moreover, in paragraph 2 of the application the applicant has stated that from the date of filing of the complaint in February 2004 till March 2007 he was diligently attending to the complaint. 3. In the circumstances, a case is made out for condonation of delay. The prejudice which may be caused to the first respondent can be compensated by ordering payment of costs. 4. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The applicant will pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent. 5. The application for leave shall be placed for hearing on 18th February 2009. It is made clear that if the leave is granted, the appeal will be forthwith taken up for final hearing. The advocate for the applicant will place on record a true copy of the Roznama on record. ((-3-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)