1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.583 OF 2010 Surekha Balu Gaikwad Applicant versus Balu @ Hemant Kashinath Gaikwad and others Respondents Mr.Makarand Panchakshri i/by S.K.Shinde for applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsure, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 21st November 2011 PC : 1. The criminal application is filed for condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the revision application. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are charged under the provisions of sections 498-A and 328 of Indian Penal Code at the instance of applicant-wife. They were convicted by the Magistrate. However, they have been acquitted by the Appellate Court. Therefore, the applicant is before this Court against the order of Appellate Court. 2. As stated above, there is delay in filing the revision application. In paragraph 6 of this application the applicant has given reasons for the delay. It is stated that the applicant is staying at Aurangabad, whereas, the proceedings were pending in the Court at Nashik. The applicant came to know about the order of acquittal some time in November 2011. Therefore, the delay has been caused. 3. Notice was issued to respondent no.1 and 2 and they are represented by advocate. However, none appears for them today. They 2 have also not filed affidavit contesting present application. In view thereof, the contentions raised in this application are deemed to have been accepted by the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, criminal application deserves to be allowed. Same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (R.V.MORE, J.)