1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application (APPR) No. 169/2010 [Central Bureau of Investigation thr. Dy. S. P. (CBI) Nagpur Vs. V. S. Kumbhare] ................................................................................................................................................................... .. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... .. Shri S. Ahirkar, Advocate for applicant. Shri S. G. Loney, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 07, 2010. Heard Shri Ahirkar, learned Special Counsel for the applicant and Shri S. G. Loney, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. By this application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 264 days caused in filing Criminal Revision Application. The learned Judge, Special Court (Central Bureau of Investigation) Nagpur passed the order on 15.07.2009 below Ex. 23 in Special (CBI) Case No. 7/2007. By that order learned Sessions Judge discharged the respondent-accused. On behalf of the applicant, application for certified copy was made on 16.07.2009 and the certified copy was delivered on 29.07.2009. In the application it is averred that after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment the same was forwarded to the Senior Public Prosecutor for offering his comments/opinion. The comments were submitted by Senior Public Prosecutor, on 27.03.2010. Shri Loney, 2 therefore submitted that applicant has not explained the delay for filing application between 29.07.2009 and 27.03.2010. Pursuant to that, applicant has filed additional affidavit and in that affidavit it was contended that Shri Suresh Meshram, Personal Assistant to Senior Public Prosecutor & Enquiry Officer, did not forward the case papers to Senior Public Prosecutor. Shri Ahirkar, submitted that Departmental Enquiry was conducted against said Meshram and penalty of withholding one year’s increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect in the same time scale of pay was imposed on him. He has also produced documents to substantiate this submission for my perusal. Shri Loney, submitted that at any rate the applicant has not explained the delay between 17.05.2010 and 25.06.2010. He submitted that on 05.05.2010 the Additional Director (CBI) New Delhi, accorded approval to file the revision application. The said approval was communicated to Joint Director, Zone I (CBI) Mumbai. The said officer in turn communicated the said fact to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CBI) Anti Corruption Bureau on 07.05.2010. This communication was received by the Superintendent of Police (CBI) Anti Corruption Bureau on 17.05.2010. However, Superintendent of Police requested the counsel for CBI to take appropriate steps on 25/06/2010. He, therefore, submitted that applicant has not explained the delay occasioned between 17/05/2010 and 25/06/2010. He, therefore, prays for 3 dismissal of the application. In support of this submission he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in P. K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276. On the other hand, Shri Ahirkar, submitted that applicant has explained the delay between 29/07/2009 and 27/03/2010 by filing additional affidavit. So far as explanation for the delay between 17/05/2010 and 25/06/2010, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Kerala Vs. K. V. Ayisumma AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2750, to contend that insistence from State upon explaining every day’s delay by Court would be improper. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case the delay occasioned is of 264 days in filing the criminal revision application. By and large, in every application for condonation of delay, there is some element of negligence. However, while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to adopt liberal approach taking into account the length of delay as well as the reason for such delay. The applicant has come out with the case that Personal Assistant to Senior Public Prosecutor, Suresh Meshram was responsible for not forwarding the papers to the Senior Public Prosecutor. There was dereliction of duties on his part and consequently departmental enquiry was conducted against him and penalty was inflicted on him. In view of this, it 4 cannot be said that applicant has not explained the delay between 29/07/2009 and 27/03/2010. In paragraph 2 of the application, the applicant has explained the delay after 27/03/2010. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Special Tahsildar (Supra), in my opinion explanation for every day’s delay cannot be insisted upon. In view of this, I am satisfied that applicant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Application is allowed and the delay of 264 days in filing application is condoned. JUDGE svk