((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Govind Dnyanoba Karhad Respondent S.S.Pednekar, APP for State. Mrs.Racheeta Dhuru for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. When this application for condonation of delay was heard on 9.4.2009, this Court observed that though the impugned order was passed on 23.10.2007 the application for certified copy was made on 1.7.2008 and there was no explanation for this gross delay in applying for the certified copy. Therefore, a liberty was granted to the applicant to file additional affidavit to explain this delay. Accordingly, an affidavit of the concerned additional public prosecutor at Baramati has been filed in this Court. The said affidavit dated 18.4.2009 records that after receiving ((-2-)) the certified copy of the impugned order the same was forwarded to the law and judiciary department. He stated that the certified copy was sent to the law ministry on 30.9.2008. The affidavit states that thereafter the concerned additional public prosecutor suffered an accident. This affidavit does not contain any explanation for delay in applying for certified copy of the impugned order. The second affidavit dated 2.5.2009 of the same additional public prosecutor has been tendered today. In the said affidavit again there is no explanation as to why the certified copy was not applied for till 1.7.2008 when the impugned order was passed on 23.10.2007. By the said affidavit it is sought to be contended that there were typographical errors in the impugned judgement and an application was filed to correct the same on 26.9.2008. 2. Thus, there is no explanation in both the additional affidavits for the gross delay in applying for the certified copy. Hence, no case is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is rejected. ((-3-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)