1 appln667-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 667 OF 2010 Mrs. Varsha Dilip Badlani .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Mr. Virendra Parikh for the Applicant Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State Mr Rajendra Shirodkar for Respondent No.2 CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 1st March, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing an application for leave to appeal against the order dated 9/2/2009 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8 th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 530/SS/2003. 3. The applicant-original complainant is a Bank officer. At the relevant time, she was working as Chief Executive Officer in 2 appln667-10 Kapol Co-op. Bank Ltd. Fort, Branch, Mumbai and respondent No.2- original accused is one of the directors of the said Bank, who allegedly circulated a complaint in the bank and to the higher authority complaining about her working. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C., a case of defamation against respondent no.2-accused, whose plea was recorded. The said complaint came to be dismissed due to absence of the complainant and also for the absence of her counsel. The said order of dismissal dated 9/2/2009 is impugned in the appeal. According to the applicant she came to know about the said order on 7/10/2009 and applied for certified copy immediately and she received the certified copy on 28/10/2009 and then prepared her mind to file this appeal and accordingly filed the application on 10th February,2010 i.e. after more than three months and consequently there was delay in filing the appeal. Therefore the application for leave to appeal came to be filed alongwith this application for condonation of delay. 4. Perused the Application. The application is opposed by Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment in the case of N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court 123 and urged to condone the delay,considering the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3 appln667-10 5. Without touching to the merits of the case and order of dismissal, it is seen that there is not a single line stated about sufficient cause or any reason for delay in the application by way of explanation, for the alleged delay and, therefore, such application cannot be entertained. Hence, no case for condonation of delay is made out and the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. The application is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )