(1) criapln207-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 207 OF 2010 Dharasing s/o Attarsing Bhosale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. N.R. Jamdhade, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. Ashok Ghuge, advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. .... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 11th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is praying for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application against the order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, from the offences punishable under section 3 (i) (x) and under section 3 (i) (xi) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other consequential offences. The present applicant was the complainant in the said prosecution, initiated by the State. The applicant states that the delay has occurred due to (2) criapln207-10 his poverty as well as the concerned authorities had assured him that the Authority would file Revision against the order of acquittal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 submits that it is a settled law that poverty cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. 4. It may, however, be noted that the present applicant/complainant is an illiterate person. Besides the ground of poverty, he has made out a ground of pursuing the prosecution wing of the State, in order to file Appeal against the order of acquittal. Had the Appeal been preferred by the State, the scope of the hearing would have been wider and, therefore, the delay is caused in filing the Revision. In view of these circumstances, the delay is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] NPJ/criapln207-10