1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.369 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2007 Satish R. Surve Applicant versus Sunil Dharma Mane and others Respondents Rajiv Mane for applicant. S.J.Patil for respondent no.1. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the first respondent. The applications are opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. Criminal revision application filed by the applicant has been dismissed for non prosecution as the advocate for the applicant was not present. In view of the reasons set out in the criminal applications, the same are allowed and Criminal Revision Application No.318 of 2007 as 2 well as Criminal Application No.211 of 2007 are restored. 3. It is stated in the application for restoration that an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State has been admitted. Hence, Criminal Application No.211 of 2007 and Criminal Revision Application No.318 of 2008 deserve to be heard along with said appeal. Order accordingly. The advocate for the applicant will furnish appeal number of the appeal preferred by the State by filing a praecipe within two weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)