1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2008 Mugdha Developers, Proprietor, ... Applicant Vs. Shree Lokmanya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit & others. ... Respondents Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the Applicant. Mr. M.P. Bapat i/b Mr. G.V. Limaye for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State/Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. This is an application for condonation of delay about 290 days in filing a criminal revision application for challenging the order by which the applicant has been convicted. The application has been strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the first respondent by contending that there is absolutely no justification for a long delay of 290 days. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the reasons 2 which are given in the application for condonation of delay are not at all relevant. 2 The revision application is directed against an order of conviction of the applicant. The sentence is of payment of fine and the fine amount has been deposited. One of the grounds pleaded in the application is that the applicant who is a promoter and builder made an attempt to discharge her obligation of executing a conveyance deed in favour of the first respondent. However, she could not succeed. 3 Liberal approach is required to be adopted while considering the application for condonation of delay. This is a revision application where the challenge is to the order of conviction. The delay deserves to be condoned. However, first respondent deserves to be compensated by ordering payment of costs. 4 Hence, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Applicant will pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from today. Deposit of costs in court or payment of costs to the Advocate for the first respondent shall be treated as sufficient compliance. JUDGE