(1) Cri. Application No. 966 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 966 of 2011 (In Criminal Application No. 965 of 2011) Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ternanagar (Dhoki), Taluka and District : Osmanabad, Through Shri Sheshrao s/o. Bhaurao Chalak, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Service, .. Applicant R/o. Ternanagar, (Original Taluka and District : Osmanabad. complainant) versus 1. Sakharam Sitaram Magar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wagholi, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents (No.1 - Original 2. The State of Maharashtra. accused) ....................... Mr. S.B. Ghute, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kawade, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.2. (2) Cri. Application No. 966 of 2011 ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant), for condonation of delay of 439 days caused in filing accompanying Criminal Application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the present Application vehemently, and submitted that it bears no substance, and the same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same be rejected. 4. Considering the contents of the application and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicant has put forth reason for the delay in paragraph 5 of the present Application, that there was bona fide mistake on the part of the applicant, since applicant filed Criminal Revision Application before (3) Cri. Application No. 966 of 2011 learned Sessions Court, and averred that the said period which was consumed before learned Sessions Court, in prosecuting the said proceedings bona fidely, be excluded, and relied upon following judicial pronouncements : (i) Judgment of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of Deputy Collector, Northern Sub-Division, Panaji Vs. Comunidade of Bambolim, reported AIR 1996 Supreme Court 148. (ii) Judgment of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of Sunder Das and others Vs. Gajananrao and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1686. (iii) Judgment of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of J. Kumaradasan Nair and another Vs. IRIC Sohan and others, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1921 = AIR 2009 SC 1333. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has contended that the applicant is an institution and efficient legal advice was available at the service of the applicant, and therefore, ground put forth by the applicant, in respect of bona fide mistake cannot be accepted, and the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 prays for reasonable costs, if the present Application is allowed. 6. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and relying (4) Cri. Application No. 966 of 2011 upon aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it appears that applicant committed bona fide mistake in prosecuting revision before learned Sessions Court, and hence, period consumed therein deserves to be excluded, and the delay occurred in filing accompanying Criminal Application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, but simultaneously, reasonable costs is required to be imposed upon the applicant, payable to present respondent no.1 i.e original accused, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. 7. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause "A" thereof, and delay of 439 days caused in filing accompanying Criminal Application stands condoned, subject to payment of costs which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees one thousand only], payable by the applicant to the respondent no.1 i.e. original accused, within a period of two weeks from today, and present Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/cria966