-: 1 :- appr-228/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. [st.] NO. 263 OF 2011 Ramchandra Y. Mulik. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Tarun Sharma i/b Rajiv Sawant Associates for R-2 to 9. Mr. D. R. More, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 182 days that had occurred in filing revision application. 2. Respondent nos. 2 to 9 were charged for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 224 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted by the JMFC, Gargoti for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 and 323. Accused no.1 was separately convicted for the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC. This conviction is set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal and therefore the above revision is filed. Since srp -: 2 :- appr-228/11 there has occurred some delay, the aforesaid application is filed for condonation of delay. The applicant in paragraph no.3 of the application has made following averments. : “3. The applicant respectfully states that there occurred a delay of 152 days in filing the present Cri. Revision Application. The said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Application further states that the Applicant is an agriculturist anware about the legal procedure and limitation period in filing the present Criminal Revision Application. It took some time for the Applicant to collect all the necessary papers from the lower court and engage an advocate in this Hon’ble High Court. Hence, there occurred some delay in filing the present Revision Application. The said delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.” 3. The reasons given by the Applicant are very vague. The only reason given is that the Applicant is an agriculturist and unaware about the legal procedure. The applicant has not given any particulars as to when he applied for the certified copies and when same were made available to him. Particulars are also not given when the Applicant collected the documents from the lower Court and contacted the Advocate in this Court. 4. Be that as it may, on merits also I find that cross complaints were filed by the Applicant and respondent no.5. In the complaint filed by respondent no.5,the Applicant is acquitted. -: 3 :- appr-228/11 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent no.5 has not filed any appeal/revision against the order of acquittal of the applicant herein. He further submitted that his client is not intending to file any criminal proceedings challenging the Applicant’s acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence, has observed that it is not clear who is the aggrieved party. Taking aforesaid circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to condone the delay and Application for condonation of delay is therefore rejected. Consequently, revision is also rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.)