1 cri.wp no. 2830 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2830 OF 2010 Mrs. Surekha ARun Sawant ... Petitioner Versus Arun Baban Sawant and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Avinash Fatangare, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition challenges the correctness and legality of the order dated 13th August, 2010 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dismissed Misc. Application No. 45 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring the revision application against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane. The petitioner is complainant in FIR vide C.R. No. 435 of 2006 under section 498(A), 406, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal code. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 were the accused in the complaint. By the order dated 26th June, 2008 the respondents came to be acquitted. 2 cri.wp no. 2830 of 2010 2. On 5th March, 2010 the petitioner filed revision application in the sessions court along with application for condonation of delay of 591 days. The Sessions Court after going through the application and after hearing both the sides, concluded that the elaborate delay has not been properly explained with any justifiable reason and refused to condone the delay. 3. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner sets out two explanations for the delay. Firstly that against the order of acquittal she had initially approached this court. As there was delay in approaching this court also she had filed an application for condonation of delay. That application came to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 5th August, 2009. Therefore, the time taken on account of the application before this court should be deducted from the total period of delay. The second ground set out in the application is that the relevant papers of the case were misplaced during the shifting of the office of the advocate for the petitioner after withdrawal of the proceedings in the High Court. The Sessions Court has noted that there are no particulars whatsoever of the second ground stated in the application. The application does not set as to when was 3 cri.wp no. 2830 of 2010 the office of the advocate for the petitioner shifted and when were the papers found missing and the date on which the same were traced. In the absence of these details, it is difficult to appreciate the second ground explaining the delay. No fault can be found with this reasoning of the Sessions Court. There is one more aspect of the matter and that is initial delay by the petitioner. Admittedly, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court earlier also. That period of delay is neither been referred to nor explained in the application. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. Judge