1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2559 OF 2009 Shamson S/o.Shankarrao Jadhav PETITIONER VERSUS The United Church of Northern India, Trust Association, and another RESPONDENTS Mr.Kailash B.Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant is praying to condone the delay which was not condoned by the Learned Sessions Judge, Jalna and dismissed the Criminal Misc. Petition No.51/2008. This application is preferred to condone the delay and to entertain the revision application. 2. Heard respective counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the papers which are annexed with the application as well as alongwith the reasoned application. I have also perused the order 2 under challenge, and the application moved of which copy is annexed at page no.28. After going through the application, one fact is clear that initially the applicant has filed a criminal writ petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Jalna in STC No.4326/2005. Writ petition no.502/2007 was disposed of on 04/09/2008 as it was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file the proper criminal proceeding before the competent Court of Law. It appears that even though the writ petition was disposed of on 04/09/2008, as now the Internet copies are available and which can be used as certified copies, but the criminal revision application alongwith the application for condonation of delay was filed on 29/09/2009 before the learned Sessions Court, at Jalna. Vide reasoned order, the said Misc. petition was dismissed which is under challenge. On perusal of the application moved before the Learned Sessions Court at Jalna, I do not find as to in which manner the delay was explained even though it was urged that this explanation finds place in para no.3 and 4 of the application before the Sessions Court at Jalna. Then one fact is clear that this delay was not properly explained. 3. In the premise, the Sessions Judge, who has rejected the application bearing Criminal Misc. Petition No.51/2008, I do not find any fault in that order. Apart from it, on merit the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent u/s. 630 of The Companies Act as the applicant herein has not vacated the service quarter after his services were over. No legal right is carved out to retain the service quarter 3 after the service period is over. In the premise, apart from the application rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna about the condonation of delay, there are no merits in the revision application also. 4. In the premise, the application as well as the revision application sans any merit and stands dismissed. As the criminal revision itself stands dismissed as sans any merit, no question to entertain the stay application. Hence the Criminal Application No. 2559/2009 also stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.rev.appl.195-09