1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPR) No. 221/2010 [Purushottam Kisanrao Bhagat Vs. State of Maharashtra] ................................................................................................................................................................... .. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for applicant. Shri J. B. Jaiswal, APP for non applicant no.1/State. Shri Anil Mardikar, Advoate for non applicant no.3. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2010. Heard Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jaiswal, learned APP for non applicant no. 1 and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for non applicant no. 3. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing Criminal Revision Application. Initially, application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was made for seeking permission to withdraw the case against the applicant herein. The said application was made on 01.12.2008. That application was decided on 03.12.2008 and proceedings against the applicant were closed. Respondent no.3 herein challenged that order by filing 2 Criminal Application (APPR) No. 141 of 2009. By judgment and order dated 22.02.2010, this Court partly allowed that revision application and set aside the order dated 03.12.2008 below Ex. 53 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pusad. The proceedings of the said application were remitted to the learned Sessions Judge for fresh hearing and disposal. Pursuant to that order, the said application was decided 29.04.2010 and the application for withdrawal from the prosecution was rejected. It is against that order, the applicant has preferred Criminal Revision Application on 30.08.2010. Since there is delay of 33 days, the present application is filed for condoning the delay. It is averred in the application that application for certified copy was made on 30.08.2010 and it was received on the same day. Applicant thereafter contacted his counsel who conducted and argued the application. His counsel advised him to prefer application in this Court. Thereafter the applicant contacted his present counsel who asked him to bring the copy of the charge sheet in both the sessions trials as also the communication of the State Government to Public Prosecutor dated 24.09.2008. It is further averred that the applicant required time to collect these documents and in particular the communication of the Sate Government dated 24.09.2008 as also the copy of the charge sheet in Sessions Trial no. 110/2003. The respondent no.3 has filed reply opposing 3 the application. It is averred that no particulars are set out in the application. Communication dated 24.09.2008 was already supplied to the applicant. In so far as, bringing charge sheet is concerned, it is contended that for preferring revision, there was no question of bringing any charge sheet. It is finally averred that the present application is an attempt to delay the pending trial against the applicant on the charges under which Crime No. 68 of 1998 was registered at Police Station Umarkhed. It is, therefore, contended that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that delay of 33 days is occasioned in filing criminal revision application. It is also not in dispute that application made by the learned APP under Section 321 of the Cr. P. C. was rejected by impugned order on 29.04.2010. It is against that order the revision is preferred on 30.08.2010. Applicant has averred that time is consumed in collecting the documents and in particular the copy of the charge sheet in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2003 which has direct bearing in the case in hand. It may be true that he was already having copy of the communication of the State Government to the Public Prosecutor dated 24.09.2008 but that is not the sole reason given for condoning the delay. In the reply it is contended that for preferring revision application there 4 was no question of bringing any charge sheet. I am of the opinion that the said contention does not carry any merit. By dismissing the application for condonation of delay criminal revision application will stand dismissed on technical grounds. Having regard to the length of delay I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served by condoning the delay rather than dismissing the revision application on the technical ground. In the result I am satisfied that, the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). JUDGE svk