1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.625 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Suresh Pandurang Lashkare .. Respondent Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard learned A.P.P .for the State. 2. It is the application for restoration of earlier dismissed delay condonation application. The delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal against the acquittal of accused for the offences punishable under section 379 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code. 3. Earlier J.M.F.C., Pune convicted the Respondent accused, 2 however, appeal was allowed by Sessions Court Pune. After going through the papers the fax copy of the notice issued against the accused is found having the acknowledgment of the accused dated 17th April, 2009, however, due to conditional order passed by the another Bench dated 25th February, 2009, the delay condonation application came to be dismissed for not taking steps against Respondents. 4. Considering service on the Respondents as on 17th April, 2009, present restoration application is allowed and criminal application is disposed of. It appears that there is a delay of about 61 days in preferring the appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused. It also appears that said delay is due to the time taken for getting the permissions from Law and Judicial Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It being a systemic delay, in the opinion of this Court, it can be condoned and as such the delay condonation application is also allowed and delay is condoned. 5. The leave petition alongwith the appeal is fixed for orders. In the meantime, fresh service against Respondents. 6. S.O. for three weeks. 7. With the above directions, restoration application and delay condonation application, both are disposed off. 3 (A.R. JOSHI, J.)