- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2007 Bhiva Ladu Sawant & others ...Petitioners vs. Narayan Yashwant Naik & others ...Respondents Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the petitioners Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for State None appears for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 20,2008 : AUGUST 20,2008 : AUGUST 20,2008 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Advocate for the petitioners. None appears for the first and second Respondents though they are represented by an Advocate. The third Respondent is dead. On 20th November 2007, a notice was issued by this court for final disposal at admission stage. 2. At the instance of the first to third Respondents proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 were initiated against the Petitioners. An order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sawantwadi on 31st March 2005 holding that the property subject matter of the dispute was in possession of the first to third Respondents. A Revision Application was filed by the Applicants for challenging the said order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. There was delay of one year, - 2 - two months and thirteen days in filing the Revision Application. By order dated 12th December 2006, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for challenging the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. He pointed out that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned order and after they were made aware of the impugned order, steps were immediately taken for challenging the impugned order. He submitted that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. In paragraph (1) of the application for condonation of delay, a specific assertion has been made that the petitioners were not aware of the order dated 31st March 2005 and no intimation in writing of the said order was served to them. It is stated that only when the petitioners were called to Banda Police Station for making an enquiry on the basis of a police complaint filed by the first to third Respondents, the petitioners were informed about the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. It is stated that after taking legal advice, on 7th April 2006, the petitioners applied for grant of certified copy of the impugned order which was received by the petitioners on - 3 - 2nd May 2006. A Revision Application was filed on 14th June 2006. It is asserted that the petitioners are illiterate farmers and some of them are very old. It is stated that in the proceeding before the Executive Magistrate, the petitioners had not engaged any Advocate. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has not disbelieved the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned Judge has not specifically adverted to the averments made in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the application for condonation of delay. The learned Judge has specifically referred only to the ground taken by the petitioners regarding ignorance of law. 6. In view of specific assertion made by the petitioners that they were not served with the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, this was a case where a liberal and justice oriented approach ought to have been adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the learned Judge has not done so. In my view, a case for condonation of delay was made out by the petitioners. 7. Hence,I pass the following order : i) The impugned order dated 12th December 2006 is quashed - 4 - and set aside. ii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 5 of 2006 is hereby allowed. Revision Application preferred by the petitioners shall be registered and shall be decided in accordance with law. iii) All contentions of the parties on merits in the Revision Application are expressly kept open. iv) Petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE