IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.410 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.87 OF 2006 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Sonali S. i/b.M/s.Consulta Juris for the Applicants. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 23rd , 2009. P.C. Heard Advocate the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. It is the application for restoration of earlier dismissed criminal appeal No.87 of 2006. There is delay of 288 days. Earlier Application for leave bearing No.4293 of 2004 was allowed by this 1 Court. By order dated 17th January, 2006, leave was granted and Appeal was admitted. Thereafter, by order of this Court dated 15th November, 2006 time was given to remove some office objections till 18th December, 2006, and it was further mentioned that if office objections are not removed within stipulated time, appeal shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, there is nothing on record that whether the office objections are removed or not. Thereafter, it appears that matter was again taken before the Court on 1st April, 2008 alongwith various other matters and directions were given by this Court again to remove the office objections within six weeks from 1st April, 2008. In fact, when such order was passed on 1st April, 2008, criminal appeal was already dismissed for want of prosecution to remove the office objections. The said order dated 1st April, 2008 was not complied and as such the matter stood dismissed. Again in view of such order there is a office note that the office objection as to non supplying fresh addresses of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. original accused within stipulated period on 16th May, 2008, the Appeal will stand dismissed and accordingly, it was so dismissed. 3. As such there are latches on the part of the Applicant and now again this application was preferred for restoration of the Appeal. As said application was preferred after delay of 288 days as per the office note, by the present application it is prayed to set aside the order of this Court dated 1st April, 2008. However, in fact prior to 2 passing of such order, the appeal was already dismissed, and it was not restored and so as to be there on board on 1st April, 2008. 4. In view of the above circumstances, there is nothing in the matter so as to give again latitude in favour of the applicant as in the opinion of this court, the earlier latitude given was misplaced. 5. Under the circumstances, the present application for restoration is, dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3