IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2008. IN IN IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.54 OF 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.54 OF 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.54 OF 2008. The Union of India ..Applicant versus S. Ramanathan & Others ..Respondents Mr.V.H.Kantharia for the Applicants None for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 as notice is not issued. Mr.Saste for Respondent No.6 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. P.C. 1. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 faced trial under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act before the learned Special Judge for Gr. Bombay in Special Case No.8 of 1997. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 were acquitted by judgment and Order dated 2.1.2007. The application for certified copy was promptly made on the same day of the judgment and the certified copy was received on 11.5.2007. Thereafter steps were taken to brief the concerned advocate and file moved from point to point as set out in paragraph 4. -2- 2. I have heard Advocate Mr. Kantharia on the question of condonation of delay. The record shows that the applicants got certified copy in time and therefore what was required to be done was filing revision soon after the certified copy was received on 11.5.2007. 3. Paragraph 4 onwards goes to show as to how the files moved from point to point and as to how the delay had occassioned. Learned Advocate Mr. Kantharia submitted that the applicants have explaind the delay pointwise and therefore the delay is required to be condoned particularly when the advocate was not heard for sometime when the brief was entrusted to her. In my view, once the copy was received on 11.5.2007 the applicants should have attended to the matter and filed revision expeditiously. The application mentions the reason for delay. Considering the fact that the applicants have a well established office machinery, the delay which has occassioned cannot be considered as worth condoning. In my view in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the delay of 175 days cannot be condoned and accordingly the applicatin is required to be rejected. Hence, the -3- Order. ORDER Application is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)