* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 670 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/Complainant Versus 1. Abhijit Dadasaheb Jagdale 2. Sou.Kalpana Dadaso Jagdale ....Respondents/Orig.Accd nos.1 and 2. ====== Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for applicant-State. Ms.Shradha Hingase i/by.Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure,adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This Criminal Revision Application filed by the State arises out of the order dated 6th September, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur, District-Kolhapur rejecting Criminal Misc.Application No. 2 of 2008 filed for * 2 * condonation of delay in filing appeal against the judgment and order passed in Regular Criminal Case No.28 of 2002. The reason for delay made out in the application is essentially administrative delay claimed by the State. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge on the reasons set out by the State in the application for condonation of delay reads as follows : “. The prosecution applied for the certified copies of the judgment on 2.01.2008 and received it on 07.02.2008, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the proposal was prepared and sent to the District Government Pleader on 11.03.2008 or that it was forwarded to the District Magistrate on 15.03.2008 and that the sanction accorded in the name of Court at Ichalkaranji was sent back on 9.05.2009, there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to on which date the District Magistrate accorded sanction in the name of the court at Ichalkaranji and when it was received to the office of Additional Public Prosecutor at Jaysingpur. It is not know why the said authority took so much time to accord sanction. The person responsible for delay has not filed affidavit setting forth before the court the reason for delay. Nobody has taken responsibility for the delay. It is not known as to whether really the proposal was submitted for sanction on 11.03.2008 and it was forwarded to the District Magistrate on 15.03.2008 and recording the subsequent incidents and their dates. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay in preferring the memo of appeal.” 3. From the above apt observations, it can be seen that there * 3 * is absolutely no case made out by the State for condoning the delay. Therefore , there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]