1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2002 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN NO.52 OF 2002 The Assistant Registrar of Companies.. Applicant versus M/s.Viral Filaments Ltd. & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.H.V. Mohta for the applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 29th January 2008 P.C.: 1. This application is for condonation of a delay of nearly 11 months and 15 days in filing of a revision application. 2. The applicant - Registrar of Companies prosecuted the respondent no.1 company for alleged 2 violation of the Companies Act by filing a complaint before the Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. By a judgement and order dated 29th July 2000, the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. That order is sought to be impeached by the present revision application which has been delayed. 3. The delay is sought to be explained in paragraph no.7 of the application in which it is stated that the opinion of the Law Ministry was sought regarding the challenge of the order and the opinion of the Law Ministry was received on 11th December 2000 and 23rd January 2001, to file the criminal revision application before the High Court. Thereafter, the revision application has been filed on 30th January 2002. 4. Even if a lenient view is taken, it can at best be said that there was good ground for not filing of the criminal revision application till the opinion of the Law Ministry was received. Admittedly opinion of the Law Ministry was received on 11th December 2000 and 23rd January 2001 asking the applicant to challenge the order by filing criminal revision application. Revision Application was not 3 filed for more than a year after the Law Ministry advised the applicant to file the revision. The delay between 23rd January 2001 and 30th January 2002 (of more than a year) is not at all explained. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this court has condoned the delay in criminal application no.1638/03, 1639/03 and 1640/03, in similar circumstances and therefore delay in this application should also be condoned. Whether there is a sufficient cause for the delay is a question of fact in each case. Therefore mere fact that the delay was condoned in some other case to which the respondent was not a party cannot be a ground for condoning the unexplained delay. 6. In the circumstances, I see no reason to condone the delay. Application for condonation of delay is therefore rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J)