1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2005 Madhusudan P. Naik. ... Applicant versus State of Goa through the ... Respondents Public Prosecutor and others. Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. N. Sardessai, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Mr. E. O. Mendes, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST,2005 P.C.:­ Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2 This is an application for condonation of delay of 346 days in filing Criminal Revision Application. The Applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the Respondents. The Police made investigation on the basis of the said complaint and instituted Criminal Proceedings against the Respondents and Sessions Case No. 36/1998 thereafter was heard by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao and the Accused were acquitted by Judgment and Order dated 26­12­2003. It is the case of the Applicant that he was under bonafide impression that the State in normal course would file an Appeal against acquittal. He thereafter made inquiries to the Director of Prosecution from time to time. Thereafter, he was served with the summons of a Civil Suit which is filed by the Respondents for damages and thereafter the present Criminal Revision Application was filed. It is, therefore, submitted that sufficient cause has been shown by the Applicant for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 4 opposed to the said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. He submitted that in view of the averments in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application it is clear that the Applicant was very 3 well aware that the trial Court passed the Judgment and Order dated 26­12­2003 acquitting the Respondents. He has submitted that thereafter he had made inquires with the Director of Prosecution from time to time which is clear from the averments in para 7 of the application. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that only after the summons was served in the Special Civil Suit filed by the Respondents the present application has been filed. It is submitted that, therefore, the delay caused is not unintentional. He submitted that the Applicant was not diligent in pursuing the remedy which was available to him. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the Applicant was under bonafide impression that the State is going to prefer an Appeal against acquittal he, therefore, did not file this Criminal Revision Application. In my view, the said explanation is a plausible explanation and is a good ground for condoning the delay. Criminal Miscellaneous Application is, therefore, allowed. Delay in filing Criminal Revision Application is condoned. 4 Place the Criminal Miscellaneous Application on the Admission Board on next Wednesday. V. M. KANADE, J. RD.