IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 39 OF 2007 SMT. NOREEN PINTO ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. Date:- 13th March, 2008 P.C. Heard. This petition arises from the Order dated 20.8.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao in Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2007, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Margao having been filed beyond 90 days period of limitation, without sufficient cause having been disclosed, has been rejected. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that apart from contending that the complainant was under trauma and that she wanted to take legal advice from an Advocate in Mumbai, no other ground had been disclosed for condonation of delay of 90 days. 2. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perusal of the record, it is seen that in the application for condonation of delay which was filed before the learned Sessions Judge also apart from alleging mental trauma and that the petitioner wanted to obtain legal advice from an Advocate in Mumbai, no other facts have been disclosed which could reveal any case for delay in filing the revision application. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the various contentions sought to be raised in the matter, as also the decisions which were sought to be relied upon, has held that the petitioner had not disclosed any ground for condonation of delay in approaching the Court. 3. Even, otherwise, the challenge in the revision application was to the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. In the judgment dated 27.12.2006 in Criminal Case No.329/S/2003/II, the order of the Magistrate discloses detailed analysis of the evidence on record and failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the charges against the accused. The said order also discloses how the complainant went on improving her case and there being no satisfactory evidence brought before the Magistrate to convict the accused under Sections 324, 504, 498(a) of I.P.C. 4. Since, there was no sufficient cause disclosed for condonation of delay, refusal to exercise the discretion to condone the delay cannot be found fault with. Undoubtedly, the complaint of the petitioner is about the alleged cruelty by her husband. However, since no satisfactory evidence in that regard was produced before the Magistrate, the lower Court on detailed analysis of the evidence having dismissed the complaint in that regard and no sufficient cause being shown for condonation of delay, there is no justification for interference in the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction. 5. The petition, therefore, fails and is, hereby, rejected. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. ssm.