IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2008 FRANCIS D'SOUZA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. Vales, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 1st July, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. S. Vales, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner. This petition is filed on 18-3-2008 to challenge an Order dated 30th July, 2007 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner herein, against Respondent No.2 only. The Petitioner is the first informant at whose instance the State had filed the complaint against four accused persons and after trial the said accused came to be acquitted by Judgment dated 30-6-2006. As against the said Judgment/Order of acquittal the Petitioner herein filed a revision petition and as there was a delay in filing the same, the Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, which by the impugned Order came to be rejected as against one of the accused, namely, Respondent No.2/Mallikjarjun Kanoj. From the record, it appears that the Petitioner was unable to serve the said Respondent No.2 inspite of several opportunities given to the Petitioner. It is true that at one stage, the Petitioner filed an application stating that the State be directed to give the address of the said Respondent No.2 and no orders were passed thereon. It appears that this application was filed only to gain further time when relief sought could not have been granted in favour of the Petitioner. Even today, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the State does not have any other address of the said Respondent No.2/Accused other than what was mentioned in the charge-sheet. Delay on the part of the Petitioner in serving the said Respondent No.2/Accused was bound to cause inconvenience and harassment to the other accused who have an order of acquittal in their favour. It is only after giving several opportunities to the Petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay as against Respondent No.2 and allowed the same as against others. As regards the other Respondents/Accused learned Counsel submits that the case is fixed for final arguments on the maintainability of the revision petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Petition is therefore dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.