1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.767 OF 2009 Poonamchand Popatlal Doshi and others Petitioners versus Dara Dadiba Gowadia and others Respondents Harshal S. Suryawanshi for the petitioners. Rajesh More, APP for the State. Harshad Palwe for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said complaint. A revision application was filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Court along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was of 356 days. By the impugned order the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners have tendered on record a 2 copy of the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the delay has been sufficiently explained in the said application. The learned counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned order by pointing out that there was a gross delay and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application and no interference was called for. 3. In the application for condonation of delay the petitioners have stated that initially after service of summons they had not engaged any advocate. When bailable warrants were issued, they engaged services of an advocate on 14th March 2008. It is stated that the petitioners had to change their advocate. The newly appointed advocate advised the petitioners to file revision application against the order of issue of process. The certified copy was applied for and obtained on 24th August 2008. Immediately thereafter the revision application has been filed. 4. Considering the averments made in the application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have adopted a liberal and justice oriented approach by condoning the delay. The prejudice caused to the first respondent could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. An opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to prosecute the revision application on merits. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- 3 (a) The impugned judgement and order dated 26th February 2009 is quashed and set aside; (b) Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2008 filed by the petitioners is allowed subject to petitioners paying costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) to the first respondent; (c) The costs to be paid or deposited with the Sessions Court within a period of four weeks from today. Payment of costs is a condition precedent; (d) If the amount of costs is paid, the revision application shall be disposed expeditiously. (A.S.OKA, J.)