IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2193 OF 2006 KSL Realty and Infrastructure Ltd. ..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ...... ...Respondents. Mr.Abhay Nevagi with Mr.Yashpal Thakar i/by M/s.Paras Kuhad & Associates, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP For the State. Mr.Arshad Shaikh i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for R. No.2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 5/2/08 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class under sections 420, 464, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. As there was a delay caused in filing revision application the Misc. Application for condonation of delay was also filed. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order has rejected the condonation of delay application and aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. The grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind. The reason so assigned for the delay in the condonation of delay application is spelt out in paras 6 and 7 of the application. It is stated that the respondent- 1 company was under liquidation and the Provisional Liquidator was appointed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that the petitioner had moved an application under the Right to Information Act for obtaining certified copy of the order of winding up. Thus the reason was assigned in the application that for obtaining orders of winding up the petitioner had consumed time and as the time consumed was bonafide the delay ought to have been condoned. Strangely enough the Sessions Judge in its order has not considered as to whether the reason assigned for the delay is sufficient or otherwise. The revisional court has proceeded on the footing that the applicant has not given any reason whatsoever leave aside sufficient or otherwise for the delay caused in filing of application and hence proceeded to reject the application. The impugned order in para 8 observes thus: “As referred earlier in this case the applicant does not give any reason leave aside sufficient reason for his not approaching the Court in time. In the absence of any cause shown it becomes difficult to accept the application for condonation delay.” As stated herein above the main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has failed to consider that the reason is in fact assigned and thus the Court ought to have decided as to whether the reason assigned is sufficient to condone the delay or not. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 has canvassed that the reason assigned for seeking condonation of delay i.e. obtaining certified copy of the order of winding up 2 cannot be the reason in as much as the petitioner was very much aware about the order of winding up passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which is evident from the statement made in the application moved under RTI Act. I do not propose to examine as to whether the reason assigned is sufficient to condone the delay or otherwise. It is for the revisional Court to apply its mind and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. As the revisional Court has failed to consider the sufficiency of the reason stated in the application for condoning the delay I am constrained to pass the following order: The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay is quashed and set aside. The Misc. Application for condonation of delay bearing No.1393/06 in Revision (St.) No.4687/06 shall stand revived. The Sessions Judge shall proceed to decide the said application in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the learned counsel appearing for respective parties undertake that their client shall appear before the revisional Court on 3.3.2008 and thus a request for dispensing with notice from the revision court is made. In view of the parties undertaking to appear before the revisional court on 3.3.08 notices from the revisional court to the parties stand dispensed with. Needless to mention that all contentions are left open to be agitated before the revisional court. Rule made absolute in above terms. 5.2.08 3