1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3409/2009. (Pramod Yuvraj Chauhan Vs. The State of Mah. and Ors.) in CRIMINAL REVISION APPLILCATION ST.NO.268/2009. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RS Shinde, Adv. h/for Mr. NL Choudhari, Adv. for applicant; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State; Mr.SS Patil, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 2 to 4. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 14 th January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) Acquittal of respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in Sessions Case No.159/2002 dated 26.09.2006 by the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, is sought to be challenged. In the exercise, there is delay of 1005 days on the part of the complainant. 3) The learned Counsel submits, that the complainant could not know fate of the prosecution and hence the delay. 4) The counsel for respondents informs, it is not so. The complainant was alive to the affairs of development in the matter, as both are neighbors. According to him, in order to counter-blast of the 2 prosecution, initiated by the respondents against the complainant and, to have pressure upon the complainant, this prosecution belatedly is effected. The counsel desired to argue on merits even of Sessions Case No.159/2002. However, this is not an occasion to deal with the same. 5) I quite see that in the application, there is no explanation as to how the complainant was keeping his slumber for more than three years (1005 days). It was expected of the complainant to furnish account to govern the provisions of the law, seeking such exercise of powers. It is curious, there is no State Appeal against the said acquittal. 6) Taking survey of the facts, I find, the delay is not properly explained, and may be a counter-blast to the prosecution initiated by the respondents against the complainant. 7) The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the revision on stamp also dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/