mst FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.397 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Anilkumar Patil for applicant. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned and application is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.397 OF 2009 Abhiman Dadaji Ahire Applicant versus Lalit Shyamlal Rohidas and another Respondents Anilkumar Patil for applicant. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Notwithstanding several directions issued by this Court, this is one more case where it is found that the criminal revision application has been registered even before condonation of delay. The Registrar (Judicial-1) will take notice of this aspect. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that against the impugned order an application for leave being Criminal Application No.4105 of 2008 was filed by the State and the same has been dismissed by order dated 5th January 2009. He states that though the application for leave is dismissed, the appeal is shown as pending. His submission is that there is one more ground which is not urged in the application for leave. He pointed out that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act has been granted by the learned Additional Sessions Court to the accused without following the procedure of calling for the report of the Probation Officer as required by law. 3. As stated earlier, the application for leave preferred by the State has been rejected on merits. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused who are convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 read with section 34 of the Penal Code is a discretionary order. Even assuming that there is a procedural lapse on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that is no ground to interfere with the discretionary order in revisional jurisdiction. 4. In the circumstances, no case for interference is made out and the revision application is rejected. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial-I). (A.S.OKA, J.)