1 Cri.WP Nos.1162-1163-2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1162 OF 2010 Mrs. Swati Shivcharan Wagh ... Petitioner Versus Hiteshkumar P. Shah and Anr ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1163 OF 2010 Shivcharan R. Wagh ... Petitioner Versus Hiteshkumar P. Shah and Anr ... Respondents Mr. Inderpal Singh Nirmate along with Mr. Milind Nakshe i/by M/s. ACMT Legal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Reshma Mishra iby Mr. Dharemendra Rohra for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State in W.P. No. 1162 of 2010. M. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State in W.P. No. 1163 of 2010. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2011 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rejection of an application to excuse delay of 645 days in preferring the appeal by the original complainant is questioned. 3. There is no controversy that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 2 Cri.WP Nos.1162-1163-2010 pronounced the judgment of conviction against respondent no. 1 on 31.5.2007 and petitioner received certified copy on 13.6.2007. She has canvassed all through out that she could not prosecute her remedies owing to the ill health of her husband for which certificate dated 5.3.2008 is produced. Perusal of the said certificate illustrate that her husband was operated on 24.3.2008 and was discharged on 30.3.2008. There is no explanation offered by the petitioner as to what she was doing from 13.6.2007 till 24.3.2008. The matter does not stop here. In appeal being Appeal No. 335 of 2007 which was preferred by present respondent before the appellate forum, illustrate, the petitioner herein has participated at almost on the dates, if to be mentioned they are 21.8.2007, 6.9.2007, 10.12.2007, 11.7.2008, 16.7.2008, 22.12.2008, 17.1.2009 and 2.2.2009. 4. Considering these aspects, it is more than clear that the petitioner herein was conscious of on going appeal preferred by the respondent herein. Inspite of that situation, she sufficiently waited and thereafter seeks to excuse the delay of 645 days. The petition seeking such condonation does not disclose any sufficient ground. Rejection was justified. I do not find any reason to interfere. Both the petitions rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)