( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1857 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1856 OF 2009 Satish Madhukar Sane APPLICANT VERSUS Chatulal Rajaram Kumawat and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.S. Badakh, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal. There is delay of 7 days in filing of the application. The delay appears to have been duly explained. The applicant alleges that the appeal memo was submitted in the office of the High Court on last day of limitation, but there was office objection to the effect that the appeal was ( 2 ) not in proper format. The office informed the applicant that prayer regarding leave to file appeal and the appeal can be presented in one criminal application. So, it took about one week’s time to comply with the office objection and hence, the delay was caused. Considering explanation given, it is amply clear that the delay is unintentional. Hence, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. So far as request to grant leave to file appeal is concerned, the impugned order shows that advocate of the applicant was absent on the date of hearing and, therefore, the complaint was dismissed under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The dismissal is on technical ground. Consequently, leave to appeal is also granted. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly allowed. 4. Admit the appeal. 5. Mr. Yawalkar waives service for respondent No. 1 and seeks time to make his submissions regarding ( 3 ) merits of the appeal. Learned APP Mr. K.S. Patil waives service for respondent No. 2. By consent, the appeal to be scheduled for final hearing on 29th August, 2009. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1857-1856-09