1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 298 TO 303 OF 2009 WITH REVISION APPLICATION NO. 325, 326 & 327 OF 2009 Arun Sonawaldas Thakur and another .. Applicants V/s Pyarali Manjibhai Govanji and another .. Respondents Shr P. R. Arjunwadkar for Applicants Ms. S. G. Gajnani for Respondent No.1, Ms. S. V. Gajre APP for the State CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 20th July, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. There are 3 Applications for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the Revision Applications against the judgement of conviction. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant and his father were not well and suffering from diabetes and pulmonary problems, so he could not file the revisions within limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent i.e. Original complainant opposed the applications for condonation of delay and relied on the ruling- Ajitsingh Thakursingh & another Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 1981 CRI. L.J. 293 (SC) in which it is held that sufficient cause must be referable to period prior to expiry of limitation and any event or the circumstances arising after expiry of limitation cannot constitute such sufficient cause. 2 5. The applicant has produced medical certificate which is admittedly of the period after limitation. However, there is another medical certificate showing that since last 7 years, his father Sonawaldas Thakur was suffering from pulmonary disease and other ailments. It is contended that due to the ill health of his father and his ill health, the applicant could not remain present during the trial. Thus, though one certificate which is filed about his ill health is after the period of expiry of limitation, the ill health of the applicant and his father during the period of trial is considered as sufficient cause to condone the delay of 92 days. So also the applicant is convicted for 1 year s R.I. Hence, in the interest of justice, all ’ the three applications for condonation of delay are allowed. 6. Leaned counsel appearing for the respondents i.e. Original applicant has submitted that though there was an order passed in the Sessions Court of depositing an amount of Rs. One lakh, the accused have deposited only Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand). Therefore Considering this position, The applicants are directed to deposit .Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each in Appeal Nos. 192 of 2007 and 193 of 2007. 7. S. O. four weeks. 8. Interim order to continue till then. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR) jpc/-