1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2580 of 2008 Girish v. State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr B.N. Mohta, Adv for applicant Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 13th January 2010 1. Heard Mr Mohta, learned counsel for applicant. There is delay of 1905 days caused in filing application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Learned counsel for applicant contends that there was acid attack on Advocate Mr Bagdiya in the year 2001-02 who was looking after the complaint case of applicant. That Advocate succumbed to the acid attack in 2005 after prolonged treatment at Nagpur and Akola. Applicant thought bonafide that his junior colleagues must be looking after the matter. Since he did not get proper information, he secured it under the Right to Information Act from the District Judge, Akola and he received information that his criminal complaint case was dismissed on 28.2.2003 by the 4th Jt CJJD and JMFC, Akola. It is thereafter 2 that he collected relevant documents and has filed accompanying leave application and appeal. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed application on the ground that reasons are not satisfactory and applicant was not vigilant in prosecuting his cause. 4. Looking to the averments made in the application, report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola was called vide order dated 20th August 2009. Report dated 2.9.2009 is received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and it is placed on record. Perusal of the report shows that there is no endorsement on case papers about the transfer of case to the Court of 4th JMFC from the file of 9th JMFC, Akola. Daily Board also did not reveal the case number on some dates. All in all it appears that applicant was not able to take trace of his case for the reasons beyond his control. There was no proper follow-up on the part of lawyers appearing for him. It is settled position of law that for the fault on the part of lawyer, litigant should not be allowed to suffer. No one gains by delaying the lis. 5. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to condone the delay. Delay is accordingly condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- payable by applicant to respondents no. 2 to 8. Application disposed of accordingly. Judge. Hsj