- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 258 OF 2007 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1515 OF 2007 State of Maharashtra Applicant Vs. Dhananjay V. Meher Respondents Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the applicant. Mr. Subhash Desai, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate with M.S. Mohite for respondent No.24. CORAM : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR,& SRI. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2008. PC . Heard the learned advocates for the parties. As far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, undisputedly there is a delay of 241 days in filing application for leave to appealagainst the order of acquittal. 2. The judgment sought to be impugned, was delivered on 3rd May 2006. The - 2 - application for certified copy was filed on 11th January 2007 and the certified copy was delivered on 20th January 2007. The necessary proposal for filing of the application for leave to appeal originated from the District Govt. Pleader on 15th of February 2007 and the said proposal was received by the Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya Mumbai on 21st February 2007. After scrutinizing the papers, the Law and Judiciary department issued Govt. resolution for filing application for leave to appeal on 5th of March 2007. In normal course the application for leave to appeal ought to have been filed on or before 1st August 2006. However, the application was filed only on 29th of March 2007. 3. The application for condonation of delay apart from narrating the movement of the file relating to the decision to file the application for leave to appeal, nowhere discloses any cause, leave aside the justification, for delay in filing the application for certified copy. As already - 3 - observed above, though the judgment was delivered on 3rd of May 2006, application for certified copy thereof was filed as late as on 11th of January 2007, nerarly 5 months and 11 days after expiry of last date for filing applicaton for leave to appeal. There is no whisper about the explanation for such inordinate delay in seeking to obtain the certified copy of the judgment delivered by the Session Court. What is surprising is that even no explanation was sought for from the District Government Pleader in that regard, as is informed to us across the bar by the learned APP. 4. When the party approaches for condonation of delay in filing an application or, it is not sufficient merely to explain the time spent in taking appropriate steps to initiate proceedings from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the lower court, more so when the steps to obtain the certified copy are taken much after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed for filing such application or appeal. In the case in - 4 - hand as the period for filing the application for leave to appeal had expired on 1st October 2006 and yet for about nearly 5 months 11 days no steps were taken to file the application for certified copy of said judgment. It was absolutely necessary for the applicant to explain the said delay. Even in the course of hearing of the matter the learned APP fairly conceded that record nowhere discloses any explanation for lethargic attitude on the part of the District Govt. Pleader’s office in filing the certified copy as late as on 21st January 2007. Considering the fact that initially there was inordinate delay in preferring application for certified copy, the applicant was expected to expedite the procedure which is required to be completed to be file the application for leave to appeal and steps ought to have been taken to file such application at least within 30 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy. There is also no explanation for such delay of 2 months in taking steps to file the application for leave to appeal after obtaining the certified copy. - 5 - 5. We are aware that mere delay by itself cannot be a ground to refuse to condone the delay, in cases where the matter would apparently disclose that the judgment passed by the lower Court requires interference. In other words, if there is a good case on merits for the party seeking condonation of delay, certainly on account of delay by itself, it would not be a justification to refuse the condonation of delay. Bearing this in mind therefore, we have perused the judgment passed by the Session Court. 6. Perusal of the judgment apparently discloses that the prosecution was unable to get a single witness to support the charges against the accused person. Each and every witness had gone hostile. There is no explanation as to why no steps were taken by the prosecution agency to ascertain the reason when all the witnesses had gone hostile, or no steps were taken to ascertain whether there was any influence executed on the part of the accused person to depose falsely or to deny - 6 - their statements which were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The impugned judgment apparently discloses that no efforts were even made to ascertain whether the witnesses going so hostile could lend support to the prosecution case in spite of the fact that they were declared hostile. In other words, the judgment of the Session Court can hardly be found fault with, taking into consideration the materials available on record. That being the case, it is apparent that even on merits there is no case for interference. 7. For the reasons stated above therefore, in view of failure on the part of the applicant to give any explanation or disclose sufficient cause for inordinate delay of 241 days in preferring application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, a judgment which nowhere discloses infirmity as such, we find no case for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. 8. Hence the application for condonation - 7 - of delay is dismissed. Consequently, application for leave to appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- [ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED,J.]