IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2005 Shaila Govind Lokhande ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Mandar Limaye for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the Respondent/State. ---- Coram : V.C.Daga,J Coram : V.C.Daga,J Coram : V.C.Daga,J Date : 16.10.2007. PC 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.8.2005 whereby the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 324 & 427 of IPC. This revision was filed in the year 2005. Since then, from time to time, the opportunity was granted to the applicant to serve the respondent no.2. Almost for more than 2 years the applicant could not serve the respondent no.2. Both of them are residents of the same locality i.e. Azad Nagar, Thane. Moreover, the revision petition was filed after lapse of the period of limitation. Thus it : 2 : was barred by limitation. Since the applicant could not serve respondent no.2, by an order dated 6.8.2007 the revision came to be dismissed for non compliance of the order as well as for want of prosecution. The applicant has now moved an application for restoration. 3. In my considered view, no case is made out for restoration. The accused has already been acquitted by an order dated 23.8.2005. Till date properly constituted revision is not before this Court. The accused cannot have hanging sword over his head even after having obtained acquittal after the full trial. 4. The lithargy on the part of the complainant in prosecuting his remedy cannot be over looked. Application is thus liable to be rejected. In the result application stands rejected. (V.C.Daga,J) (V.C.Daga,J) (V.C.Daga,J)