: 1 : SD IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.369 OF 2008 PETITION NO.369 OF 2008 PETITION NO.369 OF 2008 Machhindra Anandrao Gadvekar & Ors...Petitioners V/s. Shankar Hari Harale & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND MAY, 2008. : 2ND MAY, 2008. : 2ND MAY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Courts below have considered the grievance - mainly the delay in filing of the complaint. The Revisional Court rightly held that the delay would be good defence for the petitioner-accused at the time of trial or at such other appropriate time. 2. The Revisional Court rightly pointed out that before issuance of process as many as five witnessess were examined out of which two were eye witnesses. So the Revisional Court examined the correctness of the order of issuance of process. : 2 : 3. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for this Court under sections 226 and 227 to examine the case further. No interference is called for. The Petition is dismissed at admission stage. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]