IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.871 OF 2008 Ashok Kumar Desu .. Petitioner Vs. M/s.Syngenta (India) Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/by M/s.Law Global for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjog S. Parab for the respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. : 11th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. When a query was made as to why a revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not filed by the petitioner for challenging the order of issuing process, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was never served with the summons of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent and that before filing this petition, he was informed by one of the ex-employees of the accused company that a complaint has been filed against the petitioner and the accused company. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from his own experience, delay of ten years and more will not : 2 : be condoned by the Sessions Court if the petitioner is told to adopt a remedy of filing a revision application. 2. The consistent view taken by this Court is that a remedy of filing a revision application under section 397 of the said Code of 1973 is available for challenging an order of issue of process. The law on the point of condonation of delay is also very clear. The length of delay is irrelevant and what is relevant is whether a sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. 3. According to the petitioner he came to know about the complaint in last week of March 2008. Therefore, if what is alleged in paragraph 12 in this petition is true, the petitioner can always satisfy the concerned Sessions Court that there was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is obvious that the prayer made by the petitioner for condonation of delay is bound to be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 4. In the circumstances, the petition is not entertained on the ground that a remedy of filing a revision application is available to the petitioner. : 3 : The petition is accordingly disposed of by keeping the remedy open. 5. To enable the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the Sessions Court, the ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 06th June 2008 will continue to operate till 31st October 2008. 6. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)