( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Applications No. 3220/2008 & 3221/2008 IN Criminal Appeal No.626/2008 Divakar Yadavrao Tijare vs Vinod Ambadas Bhaltadak and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr.B.B. Meshram for R-2. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 26th August, 2009 Heard. 1) Learned Advocate as well as applicant remained absent. Learned Advocate for respondents strongly opposed application for condonation of delay on the ground that although applicant claimed that he is suffered from hypertension, as a reason to pray for condonation of delay, he has not produced any medical certificate to support his contentions that he suffered from hypertension or that he was unable ( 2 ) to contact his Advocate or to file appeal in the Court. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent, Mouda Taluka, District Bhandara is situated at highway from Nagpur to Bhandara and it cannot be said that applicant was posted in interior part or that he was prevented from contacting his Advocate and to file the present appeal within time. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that no sufficient cause is made out for to condone delay and, therefore, the application be rejected. 2) I find substance in the contentions of learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, it cannot be said that Mouda Taluka is interior part away from highway so as to prevent applicant from communicating his Advocate and furthermore, no medical certificate is produced to support his contentions that applicant was suffering from illness due to hypertension. Hence, no sufficient cause is made out to condone delay. Application is rejected. Judge. Khunte