1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . Criminal Application No. 72 of 2010 In Criminal Application No. /2010 In Criminal Appeal No. /2010 SMT. SHARDADEVI W/O OMPRAKASH BAJORIYA VS. VASANT PANDURANG MEHSARE AND ANOTHER ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for applicant, Mr. O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for respondent No.2. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 25th March, 2010. 1. Learned Advocate for the applicant is called upon to argue the appeal on merits. This Court is of the view that unless there is some merit in appeal, this Court should not vex the respondent by issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay. 2. Perused record and heard both sides' Advocates. 3. It is seen that the learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that the complainant failed to attend the case on mentioned dates and even on the date of passing order. 2 4. Advocate of complainant had already withdrawn his power. It was open for the complainant to appear and to seek time. 5. It is quite polite on the part of applicant to say he does not blame lawyer, however, the fact that he did not contact his lawyer for considerable period is very well reflected from the record. 6. In this background there are no grounds to grant any indulgence. It is therefore not necessary that notice on the application for condonation of delay be issued to the respondents. 7. Hence present application is rejected. Judge |adgokar|