appln293-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2011 Dattaram Gauru Mhatre .. Applicant Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra 2) Vishwas Ganpat Mhatre .. Respondents Mr. R. K. Singh for the applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for Respondent No.2 CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This is an application for condonation of 224 days delay in filing application for leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal of the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under section 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in regular Criminal Complaint No. 167 of 2008, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad-Alibag vide order dated 23rd March, 2010. 3. The trial had taken place on the basis of a private complaint filed by the applicant. According to the applicant his previous advocate before the trial Court had mislead him by saying that he would arrange and prepare necessary appeal and inform him. The applicant was undergoing treatment for jaundice 1 appln293-11.sxw and therefore, he was not in touch with the advocate. On 7/1/2011, when he met the advocate, he was told that the said advocate is working in the trial Court and unable to attend the High Court and the applicant should engage services of some other advocate for filing appeal in the High Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed the application for leave to prefer appeal along with this application for condonation of delay. 4. After perusal of the application, I am not convinced with the reasons given for delay in filing the appeal. Assuming that they were good reasons for delay in filing the appeal, on perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that prima facie, no criminal case was made out. According to the applicant, he had spent huge amount for getting names of the respondent- accused recorded in 7/12 record in respect of the agricultural lands left behind by his maternal grand father. The accused had assured him to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation after his name was entered in the records of right and after he would get the sale proceeds on selling the land. However, after sale, the accused did not make payment to him. If there was such contract between the complainant and the accused, the complainant could enforce that contract by filing a suit. Thus, the practically there is no substance in the criminal case itself. 5. Therefore, the application stands rejected. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 2