* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3521 OF 2009 Supreme Printers and Laminators Pvt. Ltd & anr. ...............Applicants V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .............Respondents ---------- Mrs. Anita Agarwal, advocate for applicants. Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel with Mr. Yashpal Jain and Mr. Priyam Dhamankar i/by. U.L. Shah, advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED :- 7 th JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard Mrs. Agarwal appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jagtiani, appearing for respondent no.2-original complainant. 2. This Criminal Application is directed against an order passed by the 4th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay refusing to condone the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Application. * 2 * 3. Misc. Application No. 598 of 2009 was preferred by the present petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application to challenge the order dated 19/08/2006. It was the case of the petitioners herein that the Criminal Revision Application could not be filed in time on account of the circumstances, more particularly, set out therein. The precise reason set out in the application preferred on 25/3/2009 praying for condonation of delay of 2 years and 4 months, is that, the petitioners were never served a proper notice or summons but only a non-bailable warrant and therefore they came to know about the case first time on 29/12/2007. Thereafter, petitioner no.2 was on strict bed rest and advised not to travel for 8 months due to hyper tension, from 10/4/2008. An application was made on 23/1/2008 for certified copy but that was misplaced by the clerk of the Magistrate s court. The events preceding ’ filing of the application are set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 seeking condonation of delay. 4. The application is made by a limited company Supreme Printers and Laminators Private Limited and its Director, namely Mr. Gurucharan Bansal. The application seeking condonation of delay was placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who held that the fact of request for issuance of certified copies being misplaced by the court clerk, is something which can be ascertained by production of the extract of the Register. That having not been done, that reason cannot be set out as a sufficient cause. * 3 * 5. As far as service of the summons is concerned, it is observed by the learned Judge that the Rojnama of the complaint shows the date on which summons were served. On 29/12/2007 the petitioner-applicant no.2 was brought in court on a non-bailable warrant and released on bail by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, he was present in the court on 23/1/2008, 4/4/2008 and 18/09/2008. But on these dates, he has not applied for certified copy nor any explanation is forthcoming as to why he has not preferred the revision application, though he was aware of the criminal complaint. 6. In paragraph-6 of the learned Judge s order, he has commented upon the ’ Medical Certificate produced to show that petitioner no.2-original accused no.2 was allegedly unwell. The learned Judge has observed that even after the production of the Certificate, there is no explanation forthcoming as to how the petitioner remained present on 4/4/2008 and 18/9/2008. 7. Having perused this order with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Judge refusing to condone the delay, does not require interference, in this court s inherent jurisdiction. The delay admittedly is of 2 years and more. ’ It is apparent that the delay of this entire period is sought to be explained by the fact of the petitioner not being aware of the filing of the proceedings. To my mind, the approach of the learned Judge in refusing to believe this version, cannot be faulted in the peculiar facts of this case. The enormity of the delay * 4 * apart the explanation offered is not bonafide and does not inspire confidence. This court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction and if the discretion exercised by the court below does not suffer from any arbitrariness nor can be termed as capricious, so also, resulting into grave miscarriage of justice, then, to my mind, there is no reason to interfere with such an order. In these circumstances, the application is dismissed. [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J]