1 (Crim Appln 374 of 2010 in Crim Rev Appl 253 of 2003) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2010 IN MISC. APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2004 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICAION NO. 253 OF 2003 V.S. Narayanan ...Applicant Versus M/s Metal Kraft Packaging ...Respondents ----- Mr. Dilip P. Devadiga i/b. Ms. Sophia Pinto for the Applicant Mr. P.S. Hingorani -APP for State Mr.Ajay Rai i/b. Mr. Akhilesh Singh for the Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. The Respondent has filed affidavit in reply. This is an application for restoration of Criminal Application for condonation of delay and restoration of criminal revision 2 (Crim Appln 374 of 2010 in Crim Rev Appl 253 of 2003) application no.; 253 of 2003. There is a delay of 151 of days in filing the present application for restoration. 3. It is submitted that the conditional order was passed on 19th March, 2010. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant on 11th August, 2010 since the advocate on record was checking out his case status of the matter on website of the High Court, the advocate noticed that the status of the matter shown that the criminal revision application was dismissed. An enquiry, therefore, was made and preacipe dated 11th August, 2010 was filed. However, the preacipe, according to the Applicant was lost. Thereafter, on 30th September, 2010, the office informed the Applicant that since the application was dismissed, the registry was not in a position to restore the same. Thereafter, an application for certified copy of the order dated 19th March, 2010 was made on 8th September, 2010. The certified copy of the impugned order was received on 7th October, 2010. It is submitted that, therefore, the said delay which is caused in filing the present application for restoration may be condoned. 3 (Crim Appln 374 of 2010 in Crim Rev Appl 253 of 2003) 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the application initially was dismissed for default on 12.1.2008 and, thereafter, record and proceeding was sent back to the Lower Court. He submitted that after a bailable warrant issued against the Applicant, thereafter, an application for restoration was filed and the application was restored by order dated 18.6.2008. He submitted that by that time the plea of the Respondent was recorded and the matter was ready for final disposal. He submitted that, thereafter, again the application was dismissed since the Applicant did not comply with the order dated 19.3.2010. IT is submitted that a deliberate attempt was made by the Applicant to protract the trial. He submitted that this was not a fit case for granting restoration of the criminal revision application filed by the Applicant . 5. In my view, there is some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. The record shows that the Applicant has not been diligent in pursuing the case and after obtaining interim orders from this Court, he has not complied with the orders passed by this Court from time 4 (Crim Appln 374 of 2010 in Crim Rev Appl 253 of 2003) to time. In my view, the explanation which is given by the Applicant in his application cannot be accepted. The complaint was filed on 18.10.2000 more than 10 years have passed. Hence, in my view, this is not a fit case for allowing the application filed by the Applicant. Application for restoration is, therefore, dismissed. The trial is expedited. The learned Magistrate shall decide the criminal case expeditiously within three months. (V.M. KANADE J.)