1 wp2126-09 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2126 OF 2009 Securities Exchange Board of India .. Petitioner V/s. Jas One Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Bidan Chandran , Mr. Abraham K. for the petitioner. Ms. Usha Rahi i/b. Mr. Mayur Narendra & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the respondent No.3 – State. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents. I have heard the learned APP for the State. Considering the controversy involved, taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. A Revision Application was preferred by the first and second respondents who have been arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the delay in filing Revision Application has been condoned. It will 2 wp2126-09 be necessary to make a reference to the impugned order: “This application is for condoning delay in filing revision against order dated 28.2.2003 issuing process against the applicant. From the information in the tabular form given in the application, it does not appear when the applicant had presented himself before the Learned Magistrate in answer to the summons. It is however not difficult to infer that since prior to July 2006 when the case was transferred by Sessions Court, that the applicant has attended the court below. He filed application for compounding. That was rejected and on 1.3.2008 he filed a CRA 172/08, before the Hon. High Court. He was allowed to withdraw it for filing the present revision by order dated 15.7.2008. In the same week he filed this revision. It is contended that no delay is committed and if any, that may be condoned. The respondent has strongly opposed and submitted that there was no ground for condoning delay. The applicant did not file the copy of the order of the Hon. High Court. Still on the strength of the statement at bar I accept it. May be from the date of the said order there is no delay but excluding the period during which the matter was pending in Hon. High Court, there is a delay of more than three years. That is not explained any where. Since however the Hon. High Court has permitted the applicant to approach this Court in revision. It would be wrong to be technical and reject the prayer for condoning the delay because there is no convincing ground.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Thus, a clear finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that there was no explanation for delay of more than three years. The learned Judge has observed that “it would be wrong to be technical and reject the prayer for condoning the delay because there is no convincing ground”. 3 wp2126-09 4. On plain reading of the impugned order, the same deserves to be set aside being perverse. Recording a finding regarding the existence of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for condonation of delay. In the present case, the learned Judge has condoned the delay after recording a finding that there is no convincing ground to condone the delay of more than three years. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submits that the application for condonation of delay was drafted by a junior advocate and, therefore, by passing an order of remand, a liberty be granted to the first and second respondents to file additional affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay. Perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. It appears to be cryptic and appears to be drafted very casually. In the interests of justice, a liberty deserves to be granted to file additional affidavit for explaining delay. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned Judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2009 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1185 of 2008, is quashed and set aside. 4 wp2126-09 ii. Criminal Misc. Application No.1185 of 2008 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court. iii. It will be open for the first and second respondents to file an additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of eight weeks from today and no further time shall be granted. iv. The learned Sessions Judge will grant permission to the petitioner to file reply to the additional affidavit. The application for condonation of delay shall be decided afresh expeditiously. v. Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)