IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3625/2007 [Vinayak Yeshwantrao Junghare vs. Balu @ Dhanraj Nasrayan Junghare and 2 others] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 4 th FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard Shri A.B.Patil, Advocate, for the applicant/ori. complainant. None present for R-1 & R-2 though served. Shri Yengal, A.P.P. present for R-3 State. The delay in preferring the revision application is stated to be about 170 days. The reason for the delay is mentioned in para 3 of the application. There is no contest from R-1 & R-2. Learned A.P.P. states that the delay is not explained. However, it does appear that the revision preferred by the applicant is to challenge the order of modification of sentence in which the sentence of till rising of the court is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. Considering the nature of sentence provided for the offence under section 326 of the I.P.C., the sentence imposed appears to be prima facie inadequate. Learned A.P.P. states that he is unable to state as to whether the State is going to challenge the impugned order. Hence, delay has to be condoned. The delay is, therefore, condoned. Application stands disposed of. -- List the criminal revision application filed by the applicant/org. complainant for admission. The learned A.P.P. is directed to seek the instructions as to whether the State is going to challenge the impugned order of sentence. JUDGE Rvjalit