[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1893 OF 2008 IN MISC. APPLN.NO253 OF 2008 IN REVN.APPLN.ST.NO.858 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO.142 OF 2006 Su-Raj Diamonds (India) Ltd. and its associates and/or Contract Staff Association ..Petitioner Vs. Advocate Subhash G.Duthia and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Joy Deb Saha on behalf of petitioner Association Mr.Girish Kulkarni Adv. along with Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.1 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the complainant-petitioner in person and the learned advocate for the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner filed complaint against the respondents which is numbered as CC No.142/Misc./2006 and it is pending before the [-2-] learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai. In the said case, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 4.2.2007 against the present petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred Revision St.No. 858 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, however, as there was delay in filing revision, he preferred Misc. Application No.253 of 2008 for condonation of delay. The delay is of 182 days. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 13.6.2008 rejected the said application for condonation of delay, hence, this petition. 3. It is seen that after the learned Magistrate passed the order, the petitioner approached this Court against the order by preferring Criminal Writ Petition No. 1746 of 2007. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.1.2008. In the said order, it is observed that there exists alternate efficacious remedy in the form of revision which has not been availed of, and therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. The tenor of this order clearly shows that this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy, hence, he should follow the said alternate remedy. [-3-] Accordingly, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court on 11.2.2008 as per the order passed by this Court on 29.1.2008. Looking to the fact that petitioner had diligently pursued his remedy, it cannot be said that there was any lethargy or inaction on his part. Hence, looking to the facts of this case, order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 13.6.2008 rejecting the application for condonation of delay is set aside. Misc. Application No. 253 of 2008 is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge shall hear the necessary parties and dispose of the Criminal Revision Application in accordance with law. 4. Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]