1 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.153 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, New Mondha, Police Station, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Yadavrao Sainaji Ghansavant, Age-70 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. Rahulnagar, Parbhani. 2. Nirmala W/o.Yadavrao Ghansavant, Age-65 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Rahulnagar, Parbhani. 3. Mahendra Yadavrao Ghansavant, Age-30 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Rahulnagar, Parbhani. 4. Sau.Karuna w/o. Prakash Khillare, Age-33 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Rahulnagar, Parbhani. 5. Prakash Sitaram Khillare, Age-40 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, Parbhani RESPONDENTS Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State. Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/09/2011 2 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.153 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present revision application, the applicant/State has questioned the correctness of the order passed in M.A.(RJE) No. 3/2009, by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani by which application for condonation of delay to prefer a criminal appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Parbhani in RCC No.479/2004, was rejected by the learned Appellate Court. I have heard learned A.P.P. for State, applicant followed by submissions of learned counsel for respondents. Also perused the impugned judgment dated 17/06/2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. On perusal of the judgment, it reveals that there is only observation that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR so also other litigations are pending between the parties. It also appears that the learned Lower Court is much impressed by the merits of the matter without entering into as to whether sufficient grounds are shown by the State in the application for condonation of delay or not. While considering the application for condonation of delay, it is not expected from the Court to find out whether there is merit in the matter or not. While condoning the delay, the Courts need not consider as to whether there is any merit in the matter or not. It appears that the Lower Court was of the view that as there are no merits in the application, hence the delay 3 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.153 of 2011 need not be condoned. In the premise, since the impugned order is erroneous, it ought to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly impugned order of rejection of condonation of delay, dated 17/06/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application for condonation of delay filed by the State is hereby allowed. In substance, revision application is allowed as prayed for. 3. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. Parties to appear before the Lower Court within 4 weeks from the date of this order. If parties failed to appear before the Lower Court, learned Lower Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani to issue notice to the parties after receipt of writ of this order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.rev.153-11