((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2008 Varsha Dattatraya Dhavan Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for applicant. Mr.Balkrishna Joshi for respondents 3 and 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the contesting respondents (accused). The delay is of 259 days in filing the revision application. The applicant is the original complainant- prosecutrix who has filed a revision application for challenging the judgement and order dated 8.3.2007 passed by the Sessions Court by which accused no.1 was convicted for the offence u/s 376(1) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused numbers 2 and 3 were also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 506(2) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused nos.2 and 3 were ((-2-)) acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 109 read with section 376 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in the revision application is for enhancement in the sentence. The other prayer is for convicting the accused nos.2 and 3 for the offence u/s 109 read with section 376 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The application is opposed by the learned counsel for the accused by submitting that there is no explanation for delay. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another ([2007]2-SCC-322). 3. The applicant has stated in the application that he received notice of appeal preferred by the respondents 3 and 4 in the month of January 2008. At that time the applicant approached a local advocate for advise. It is stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the application that it required some time for applicant to obtain legal advice and to collect necessary funds for filing this revision application. 4. The applicant is the prosecutrix. In the matter of condonation of delay justice oriented ((-3-)) and liberal approach is contemplated. Reliance placed by the advocate for the applicant on the case of D.Gopinithan (supra) will not help the accused as the Apex Court in the said case was considering a case where delay was of 3320 days in filing an application for setting aside an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. 5. Hence, a case is made out for condonation of delay. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Revision Application shall be placed on board for admission on 22.7.2009. In the meanwhile the learned APP will ascertain whether the State intends to file any appeal against the order of acquittal. (A.S.OKA, J.)