IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ....Applicant Orig.Complainant V/S. Mr. Nitin Lakhamsi Shah & Ors. ...Respondents Orig.accd nos. 2 to 4. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State-applicant. Ms. Charmaine Bocarro, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 5th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This Revision Application arises out of the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court dismissing Misc. Application No. 1817 of 2009 filed by the State for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of acquittal dated 22nd April, 2009. 2. There was delay of 95 days in preferring the appeal by the State. The Sessions Court noted that the explanation offered by the State in the application for condonation of delay did not extend to the delay of 33 days after 12th August, 2009. The State had offered some sort of an explanation for the delay upto 12th August, 2009. But as regards the delay thereafter, the application contains no averments whatsoever. The Sessions Court, therefore observed that even though the party is not expected to explain each day’s delay, it is required to explain the entire delay. The Sessions Court held that in view of the total absence of explanation for the delay for this period, the application could not be allowed and rejected the same. 3. In the present Revision Application, the State has sought to explain the delay of 33 days by stating that the Investigation Officer having retired during the intervening period, another officer was appointed as incharge. But he had also gone on earned leave for personal work. After resuming the duty, he fell ill and went on sick leave for 8 days. Thereafter, he had to attend to different assignments and hence the delay. The difficulties in the functioning of the Investigation Officer cannot come to the rescue of the State since the delay had occurred in the office of the Public Prosecutor as the papers had already been sent to the Public Prosecutor for preparing the appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Thus, the Sessions Court is absolutely right in its approach on the application for condonation of delay. Besides, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2009 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Considering the evidence on record, there is no merit in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]