IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2006 M/s.Rupal Enterprises ...Applicant (Org.Complainant) vs. M/s.Shraddha Steels & Ors. ...Respondents (Resp.Nos.1,2 & 3 Orig.Accused) Mr.Kishore H. Bhatia and Mr.P.R. Ved for the Applicant. Mr.R.R. Yadav & Ms.Rutuja Pradhan for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.P.A. Pol, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for the respondent. 2. There is a gross delay in filing this application for leave to file appeal. No sufficient explanation has been given in the application for condonation of delay caused in filing this application. The applicant is the original complainant. His - 2 - complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. by the trial court on 28th February, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, after a lapse of almost eight months, he filed the criminal revision application in the Sessions Court on 28th October, 2005. The delay in filing the revision application was condoned, however, his revision application was dismissed on 17th August, 2006. Thereafter, he has filed this application for leave to file appeal on 13th December, 2006. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to wrong advise he had preferred the criminal revision application though it was not required, therefore, the said period may be excluded for the delay caused in filing the application. Secondly, it was submitted that after the criminal revision application was dismissed on 17th August, 2006, he applied for certified copy and he received it on 20th November, 2006 and thereafter, he filed this application on 13th December, 2006. 4. No explanation has been given as to why the application was not filed in this court either - 3 - immediately after the certified copy was received by the applicant or immediately after criminal application was dismissed on 17th August, 2006. Thus, no explanation has been given by the applicant for the delay caused in filing this application for leave to file appeal. 4. The delay application, therefore, is dismissed. Criminal Application for leave to file appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)