* 1 * Cri.Appln. 186.2010 in Cri.Revn.Appln(st). 321. 2010 22.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2010 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 321 OF 2010 Shashank Vishwas Patwardhan .... Applicant/Orig.Comp. V/S. Priya Shashank Patwardhan @ Tanuja Prabhakar Limaye & Ors. ... Respondents/Orig.Accd * * * * * * Mr..S.S. Patwardhan with Mr. A.M. Savagave, Advocate for the applicant. Applicant present in person. Mr. K.M. Irani i/by. Mr. A.A. Kocharekar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for the State-respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 22 December, 2010. P.C. : 1. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision application to challenge the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in * 2 * Cri.Appln. 186.2010 in Cri.Revn.Appln(st). 321. 2010 22.12.2010 Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2006. Respondent no.1 is the wife of the applicant. She had filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. That application was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 28th February, 1997. After dismissal of the application, the applicant alleged that the wife had committed perjury by intentionally making a false statement in the application that she was without any source of livelihood and that she was unable to maintain herself. According to the applicant, the respondent was working in a bank which fact had been deliberately suppressed by her in the application. It later revealed that the job of the respondent with the bank during the period 1st January, 1996 to September, 1996 was only a temporary job and she used to receive Rs.20/- per day as the labour charges. She had resigned from the job in September, 1996. 2. The trial court while dismissing the application of the respondent for maintenance had not made any observation that she had made a false statement on oath or that she had committed perjury. But, the applicant filed an application and prosecuted the same which resulted into, initially, the conviction of respondent no.1 for the offence of perjury, which conviction was set aside by the Sessions Court in the appeal preferred therefrom. * 3 * Cri.Appln. 186.2010 in Cri.Revn.Appln(st). 321. 2010 22.12.2010 3. After the appeal was dismissed on 30th January, 2010 by the Sessions Court, Satara the applicant had applied for certified copy of the judgment on 5th February, 2010. The same was available to him on 17th February, 2010. Thereafter, as per the application the applicant was advised by his advocate that only the State could file an Appeal under Section 378(4) Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant then claims to have visited the office of the District Government Pleader at Satara on 25th March, 2010. The applicant, however, does not state the date on which he received advice of his advocate. On 25th March, 2010, he claims to have learnt that the file had been forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department and on 26th May, 2010 he learnt that an approval was not granted by the Law and Judiciary Department for challenging further the judgment and order of the Appellate Court. Then, the applicant claims to have lost the certified copy of the judgment and order which was located only on 4th June, 2010. Thereafter, he handed the papers to his advocate in Mumbai who prepared and filed the Revision Application alongwith an application for condonation of delay on 8th June, 2010. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application, submitting that, there is no case made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. He further submits, that the present application is * 4 * Cri.Appln. 186.2010 in Cri.Revn.Appln(st). 321. 2010 22.12.2010 nothing but an act of persecution on the part of the applicant. 5. The applicant had received certified copy on 17th February, 2010. Thereafter, he claims that he was advised by the trial court’s advocate that only State can file appeal under Section 378(4) Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant conveniently does not state the date on which this advise was given. Therefore, there is no explanation for the period from 17th February, 2010 to 25th March, 2010. Thereafter, the applicant waited until 26th May, 2010 for the State Government to give approval for filing of the Appeal. He proceeded to file appeal only after learning that the Law & Judiciary Department did not give approval for filing of the appeal by the State. In the circumstances, the applicant has not made out any case for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]