1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2477 OF 2008 Bhoopalsingh Govardhandas Thakur & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1 Ravishankar Mahabaleshwar Bhoomreddy 2 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.Santosh Marawadi i/b M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioners Mr.H.J.Dedhi,A.P.P for State Mr.Ishwar Badigannawar for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 30 th June 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which application for condonation of delay made by the applicant has been rejected. The delay is of 133 days in filing the revision application. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the assertions made in the application and submitted that sufficient cause was made out. He submitted that the learned Judge has taken a hyper technical view. 2 3 The learned counsel for the first respondent- complainant opposed the petition. He pointed out that apart from the fact that no sufficient cause was made out, earlier application in this court was only by the accused no.2 (petitioner no.2 herein) and therefore, other petitioners cannot take advantage of the petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file revision application. He submitted that no sufficient cause is made out and there was no reason to interfere with the earlier order. 4 It is true that earlier an application was filed in this court only by the second petitioner. The challenge in which the said criminal application by the second petitioner who is one of the accused was to the order passed by the trial court on 21 st March 2007. The application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioners. It is stated that they had applied for certified copy of the order dated 14 th June 2007 passed by this court which was delivered to them on 12 th July 2007. After receiving the certified copy of the order passed by this court on 14 th June 2007, the petitioners filed revision application along with an application for condonation of delay in August 2007. 5 For challenging the order dated 21 st March 2007, the the criminal application was filed in this court which 3 was permitted to be withdrawn on 14 th July 2007 with liberty to file revision application. Within two months, a revision application was filed with the Sessions Court. Considering these facts, the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have condoned the delay. It is well settled proposition of law that a liberal approach has to be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay. The prejudice which may be caused to the 1 st respondent can be compensated by awarding costs. The amount of costs is quashed is quantified as Rs.7500/-. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) The Judgment and Order dated 30 th June 2008 is quashed and set aside and the and Criminal application no.175 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is allowed subject to condition of the petitioners paying costs of Rs.7,500/- to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from today. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. The deposit of amount of costs with the Sessions Court within stipulated time will be treated as sufficient compliance. ii) If compliance is made, the revision application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 4 JUDGE