IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIM. APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2011 IN CRIM. APPL. NO. 1978 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders. Mr.Prashant Malik for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. The application is filed for restoration of Criminal Application No.1978 of 2010, which was dismissed on 16/6/2011 as none appeared on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called out. In paragraph nos.3 to 5, The Advocate for the applicant has given explanation for his absence on that day. The explanation, in my view, is sufficient. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite due service nor they have filed any reply affidavit contesting this application. The averments made in the application are, therefore, required to be accepted. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIM. APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2011 IN CRIM. APPL. NO. 1979 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders. Mr.Prashant Malik for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. The application is filed for restoration of Criminal Application No.1979 of 2010, which was dismissed on 16/6/2011 as none appeared on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called out. In paragraph nos.3 to 5, The Advocate for the applicant has given explanation for his absence on that day. The explanation, in my view, is sufficient. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite due service nor they have filed any reply affidavit contesting this application. The averments made in the application are, therefore, required to be accepted. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIM. APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2011 IN CRIM. APPL. NO. 1980 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders. Mr.Prashant Malik for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. The application is filed for restoration of Criminal Application No.1980 of 2010, which was dismissed on 16/6/2011 as none appeared on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called out. In paragraph nos.3 to 5, The Advocate for the applicant has given explanation for his absence on that day. The explanation, in my view, is sufficient. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite due service nor they have filed any reply affidavit contesting this application. The averments made in the application are, therefore, required to be accepted. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIM. APPLICATION NO. 305 OF 2011 IN CRIM. APPL. NO. 4242 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders. Mr.Prashant Malik for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. The application is filed for restoration of Criminal Application No.4242 of 2010, which was dismissed on 16/6/2011 as none appeared on behalf of the applicant when the matter was called out. In paragraph nos.3 to 5, The Advocate for the applicant has given explanation for his absence on that day. The explanation, in my view, is sufficient. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite due service nor they have filed any reply affidavit contesting this application. The averments made in the application are, therefore, required to be accepted. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp