[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.444 OF 2007 IN REVN.NO. 261 OF 2001 Sudhakar Kallapa Shetty ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.V.A.Mangavde advocate for applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 DATE : JULY 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant had preferred Cri.Revision Application No. 261 of 2001, whereby he was seeking discharge. The said matter came to be dismissed for non-removal of the office objections. The applicant is seeking restoration of the Cri.Revision Application No.261 of 2001. It is seen that there is delay of five years and 61 days in filing the restoration application. On perusal [-2-] of the application and on hearing the learned advocate for the applicant, I am of the opinion that delay has not been satisfactorily explained, hence, no case is made out for condonation of delay and for restoration. 3. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]