IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2587 OF 2009 Sayed Anwar Hussain Alias Mallu Sayed Mombar Ali & Ors. ..... ..... ...Petitioners V/s Asgar Ali Abdul Ali Patel & Anr. ..... ..... Respondents. Mr.Jahangair Khojotia, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.M.R.Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No.1. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay in filing revision challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai dated 22.12.08. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned revisional court has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. He further submits that even on merits the preliminary order passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law in as much as no grounds for satisfaction as required to be arrived under the provisions of section 145(1) have been set out in the said order. 3. Learned counsel relies on judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gheverchand Devichand Shah & Anr. 1 vs. Pukhraj Vacchraj Shah & Anr, 2000(3) Mh.L.J.685, Vishwanath Kashinath Virkar & Ors. vs. Nitinchand Keshavji Gala & Ors., 1995 (2) Mh. L.J. 664 and Jayantilal Padamshee Shah vs. Chandu Khusaldas Udhwani & Ors., 1986 Cri. L.J. 988 in support of his contention. 4. This petition can be disposed of mainly on two grounds viz. first in so far as the order passed by the learned revisional court rejecting the application for condonation of delay is concerned, taking into consideration that the only ground given in the application is that the application was not knowing the provisions of revision and therefore revision was not filed within time. It is settled law that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to file the application belatedly. 5. In so far as the second ground is concerned the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 22.12.2008 has passed the order after perusing the police report and the application. He was satisfied that there may be breach of peace and therefore the parties were directed to file their written statements. 6. Perusal of the police report itself reveals that the police report states that there was possibility of breach of peace and as such necessary orders under section 145 be passed. It can thus be clearly seen that preliminary order passed by the learned Magistrate is after applying his mind to the averments made in the application and also police report. It therefore cannot be said that learned Magistrate has not applied his mind prior to passing of preliminary order. At the stage of preliminary order being passed the learned Magistrate is not expected to give detailed order and only the grounds of his satisfaction as to why he arrived at 2 subjective satisfaction that there is possibility of breach of peace are required to be given. 7. In that view of the matter no case for interference is made out. The petitioner can very well advance his submission before the learned Magistrate before learned Magistrate passes final order and learned Magistrate shall always take the same into consideration. Needless to state that the observations made by this Court are only in so far as preliminary order is concerned and learned Magistrate would not be influenced by the same at the stage of passing final order. Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11.3.2010. 3