1 Criminal Revision Appl.No.118 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2011 Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar, Age-68 years, Occu-Bhikshuki, R/o.1026, North Kasba, Solapur. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Tanubai Manik Pawar, Age-65 years, Occu-Household, R/o.A/p.Malumbra Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad 3. Bharat Manik Pawar, Age-41 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.A/p.Malumbra Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad 4. Sudhakar Manik Pawar, Age-46 years, Occu-AGriculture, R/o.A/p.Malumbra Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad 5. Vyankat Manik Pawar, Age-44 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.A/p.Malumbra Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad 6. Netaji Manik Pawar, Age-39 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.A/p.Malumbra Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad RESPONDENTS 2 Criminal Revision Appl.No.118 of 2011 Mr.S.W.Mundhe, learned counsel for the applicant.(Appointed) Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.S.N.Patne, learned counsels for respondents no.2 to 6. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 19/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels for both the parties. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Misc.Appl.No.34/2007, by which the delay was condoned in the application preferred by the opponent in this revision application to prefer the revision application before the Trial Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel for remaining respondents. 4. It appears that the revision applicant has filed private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad bearing no.952/2004 wherein some orders were passed. Those orders were challenged in Criminal Appeal No.41/2007 and the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court. Subsequently, respondents no.2 to 6 were tried by the learned Chief Judicial 3 Criminal Revision Appl.No.118 of 2011 Magistrate and were convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 427 r/w. 34 of the IPC. They were sentenced till rising of the Court and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- each with the default stipulation to suffer further SI for 15 days. This order came to be passed on 16/01/2007. Respondents no.2 to 6 have deposited the fine amount in the Lower Court. As there was delay in preferring the revision against the order of conviction, Misc.Cri.Application No.34/2007 was preferred by these respondents before this Court. It appears that this application for delay was contested by the present applicant. It is urged across the bar that in para no.3 of the application for condonation of delay, even though the ground was raised by respondents no.2 to 6 that due to weak financial position, they are not in a position to file the revision application in time, hence delay is caused in preferring the revision application. It is also stated in the said paragraph that delay caused to prefer the revision application since 18/04/2007 till today to be condoned. 5. My attention is drawn towards the order impugned, wherein these contentions were liberally accepted by the learned Lower Court and without any reasoned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed Criminal Misc. Appl.No. 34/2007. 6. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn towards the sale deed executed in favour of respondents no. 2 to 6 by which they have purchased the agricultural land at the cost 4 Criminal Revision Appl.No.118 of 2011 of Rs.8,00,000/-, hence it is urged that the contention raised that due to weak financial position of all these respondents, they were unable to file the revision application in time, is vague. It is also brought to the notice that even though the delay is claimed to be condoned from 18/04/2007, in fact, the order impugned was passed on 16/01/2007. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn towards the observations of the Lower Court, wherein it is observed that so far as delay is concerned, Apex Court and High Court has taken liberal view while granting the application for condonation of delay, but while taking the liberal view, whether the grounds raised are sufficient and just are required to be discussed in the order. Thus it is brought to the notice that the order impugned is without application of mind and hence required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the order impugned is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court i.e. the Court of Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who has to decide the application for condonation of delay no.34/2007, after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties and to dispose it of in accordance with law. 7. In the result, application stands allowed. Rule thus made absolute. Parties to appear before the Lower Court on 29/09/2011. Respective counsels for the parties undertake this Court that they will intimate the date of appearance in the Lower Court to their respective parties. Learned Lower Court not to influence with the 5 Criminal Revision Appl.No.118 of 2011 observations of this Court. 8. Before parting with the judgment, I have to appreciate the able assistance of learned counsel Shri.S.W.Mundhe, appointed to represent the revision applicant. I hereby quantify the fees payable to him in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.rev.118-11