1 Cri appln 3875.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3875 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3874 OF 2009 The Maharashtra State Co-op. Mak. Fed. Ltd. Beed through Anant Govindrao Pawar.. Applicant Versus 1. Mukunddas Madanlal Mantri & another .. Respondents Shri G. K. Thigale (Naik), Advocate for the Applicant. Shri P. K. Lakhotiya, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. G. Shelke, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State. The counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the avernments in the application and submitted that sufficient cause has been shown in the application, therefore, the delay condonation application may be 2 Cri appln 3875.09 allowed. 2. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently resisted the application and submitted that, sufficient cause has not been disclosed in the application and also upon perusal of the avernments in the application it has not been demonstrated that circumstances were beyond the control of the applicant. Therefore, application for condonation of delay may be rejected. 3. Upon perusal of the contents of the application and more particularly from para 3 to 6, I am convinced that sufficient cause has been disclosed by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay. There is no any malafide intention can be attributed by the applicant for not filing the application within time. The application for condonation of delay is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and stands disposed of. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11