1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2110 OF 2010 Prakashchand Ratanchand Jain and another ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mrs. Rajshree Gudgilla holding for Mr.V. Sharma, advocate for applicants. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the criminal proceedings and the order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 27th June, 2009 in the proceedings of Criminal Revision Application. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the impugned order, what appears is that the applicants had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.647/2008, which was withdrawn. Liberty was granted to prefer Revision Application in 2 order to challenge the order regarding issuance of process in the private complaint case. The applicants thereafter filed Criminal Revision Application before the Court of Sessions and challenged the order dated 1st March, 2008 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class regarding the issuance of process for the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the proceedings of Criminal Revision Application, the present applicants did not file application seeking condonation of delay. The office raised objection as per the submission dated 6th April, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge directed the Advocate of the applicants to remove the office objection by filing delay condonation application within a week. That was not complied with, and therefore, on 27th June, 2009, the Revision Application came to be disposed of. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the compliance was not made due to lack of communication between the Advocate and the applicants. This explanation is unpalatable and unacceptable. It was the duty of the Advocate to apply for condonation of delay along with the Revision Application itself. The lack of explanation for delay beyond period of 90 days as provided for filing of the Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not explained. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the 3 interest of justice, the trial Court is directed to consider the application of the applicants for permanent exemption from giving personal appearance in the Court under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the course of trial of the private complaint case and to give them appropriate pre-intimation for personal appearance only when such appearance is required in order to identify them or for the purpose of examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The application is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri2110.10