1210appr64.09.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 64 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. - /2009 MANIKRAO PARASHRAM PANCHAL & 4 OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. D. B. Yengal, APP for the respondent. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 12th October, 2009. 1. The application for discharge filed by the applicants came to be rejected against that revision is filed. There is delay of 352 days in filing the revision. The applicants claimed that their lawyer did not inform the applicants about passing of the order and i.e. how the delay caused. The applicants does not mention what steps were taken by them to know in particular from the Court about disposal of the matter. The contents of the application clearly go to show that the applicants want to blame their Advocate and shirk their responsibility. However, the delay can be condoned by putting the applicants to term. In my view, it wold be in the fitness of things to direct the applicants to pay costs of Rs. 7,000/- for condoning the delay. Hence, I make the 1210appr64.09.odt 2/2 following order.: i) Upon applicants’ depositing in this Court costs of Rs. 7,000/- (rupees seven thousand only) on or before 07/11/2009, application for delay shall stand granted and office shall number the revision and process it accordingly. ii) If the costs are not paid as above, the application for condonation of delay shall stand rejected and the revision shall not be looked into. iii) If the costs are so paid, it be paid in the account of State of Maharashtra as they were required to attend the discharge proceeding before the Court below. iv) Till 17/11/2009 proceedings before the trial Court are stayed. JUDGE wwl