1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.975 OF 2011 Krishnasingh Lalchandsingh Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Santosh Pawar for applicant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 16th December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 15th April 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Application No.168 of 2010 whereby his application for condonation of delay of 136 days occurred in filing the revision application was rejected. 3. The facts giving rise to this application are as under. The applicant who is resident of Jammu & Kashmir State was found in possession of a Gun. Although the applicant was having licence to hold the gun, however, the said weapon was not registered with the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, crime came to be registered being CR No.3011 of 2010 which came to be numbered as STC No.1918 of 2010. The gun was seized by the Police. The applicant in aforesaid case filed an application u/s 451 of 2 the Code of Criminal Procedure for return of the seized weapon. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 30th April 2010. The applicant therefore, preferred revision application. Since there was delay of 136 days in preferring the revision application, he also filed delay condonation application. As the delay condonation application was rejected, the applicant filed present application. 4. The Magistrate's order rejecting the application u/s 451 of the Code was passed on 30th April 2010 and the applicant filed revision application on 15th November 2010. Period of limitation is 90 days. The applicant applied for certified copy on 13th October 2010 and the same was ready for delivery on 25th October 2010. The applicant was working as security guard on megare salary. For getting the certified copy of the order dated 30.4.2010 he was not having money. Therefore, he went to his village to manage money in Jammu & Kashmir State. There, he felt ill and doctor advised him to take bed rest. He returned from his village on 13th October 2010 and contacted his advocate. Again he went to his native place for further treatment and for managing funds. At that time curfew was lodged at his town. Therefore, after lifting of curfew he again come back to Pune. The applicant relied on medical certificate in support of his contention. 5. It is settled principle of law that liberal approach should be taken while considering the application for condonation of delay and day to day delay need not be explained. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made a case for condonation of delay. The criminal application is therefore disposed of by passing following order :- (a) The impugned orders dated 15th April 2011 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.168 of 2010 is quashed and set aside; (b) The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and delay is 3 condoned; (c) Learned Sessions Judge, Pune shall decide the revision application of the applicant on merit as expeditiously as possible. (R.V.MORE, J.)