1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2803/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2830/2009 Agrasen Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd. APPLICANT VS. M/s Amar Medical & Gen.Stores & Anr. RESPONDENTS Mr.J.B.Kocheta for the applicants Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP Mr.Ranjit Patil for Res.no.1 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST,2009. P.C. . Heard. 2] The applicants have filed appeal against the acquittal alongwith an application for leave to file appeal and application for condonation of delay of 436 days . 3] The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the Administrator was appointed to look after the administration of the applicant Bank for five years i.e.since 2003 and in the year 2008 another Administrator was appointed as the tenure of five years of previous Administrator came to an 2 end. He has further submitted that the election was declared on 16th June, 2008 and the C.E.O.was appointed. However, the new Board came into existence on 12/9/2008 immediately suspended the C.E.O.and due to this administrative problem the applicant bank could not file an application for leave to appeal within limitation. 4] The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 opposed this application on the point that the bank was carrying out administration smoothly and was in working condition during this period of delay. 5] In support of his submissions he relied on the following rulings. 1] Ajit Singh Tahkur Singh and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat ,AIR 1981, Supreme Court,733. 2] State of Maharashtra Vs.Yeshwant Parsharam Sawant, 1977 ,Cri.L.J. 1477. 3] Shaikh Abdul Hasib Abdul Mannan(Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors. 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 310. 4] State of Orissa Vs. Kishore Chandra Sahu and Anr.AIR, 1960 ,Orissa,177. 6] While condoning the delay the Court has to consider the cause given for the delay whether falls during the period which starts prior to the expiry of limitation and that is the referable period. In the present case the judgment was delivered on 12/2/2008 . It shows that the correspondence which is filed by the applicant bank shows that the administrator was appointed in 2003 . However, the term of the administrator came to an end 3 in the month of February and from the month of February, 2008 there was continuous change in administration and it was not stable. Thus, the period covered is referable and the applicant is in position to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay. 7] In the ruling State of Orissa Vs. Kishore Chandra Sahu and Anr.AIR, 1960 ,Orissa,177(supra) there was change in the appointment of new clerk in the absence of usual clerk and it was rightly held that it was not sufficient cause to condone the delay. 8] The present case is distinguishable on facts as it is a bank where the administrator was appointed. Hence the application for condonation of delay is allowed in both the applications . The delay is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. The applications for leave to appeal be posted on 17/8/2009. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)