1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3349 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3348 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.646 OF 2005 Damodhar Jagannath Lokhande And Another. ... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondent. -------- Miss Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for applicants. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Shri. D.N. Salvi, Counsel, with Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, for respondent No.7. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 16th SEPTEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) The applicants filed a review application for review of the judgment and order 2 dated 23-2-2007 delivered by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.B. Dehsmukh and S.P. Kukday, JJ) in Criminal Writ Petition No.646 of 2005. The review application was filed on 18th September 2007. The application for condonation of delay of 177 days in seeking review of the said judgment and order was also filed on 18th September 2007. 2) By an order dated 4-12-2007 notices were issued to the respondents. On behalf of respondents Nos.4 and 6 affidavit-in-reply was filed resisting the prayer for condonation of delay. Rejoinder was filed by the applicants on 4th August 2009. 3) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the contentions raised in the application, reply and rejoinder. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that delay is not satisfactorily 3 explained. The statements of the applicants were recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 24-7-2007 and by giving reference to the date of the other proceedings it was canvassed by the learned counsel that the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 4) Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the explanation given by the applicants we are of the view that delay occurred in filing review application could be condoned. We find that the applicants have reasonably explained the circumstances resulting in delayed application for review of the judgment. 5) Delay is accordingly condoned. The criminal application is allowed to that extent. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crapln.3349.07