( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2009 Mrs. Savita w/o Pravin Bharat PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ..... Mr. J.N. Singh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petition is based on probable defence available to the petitioner regarding the absence of mens rea. She allegedly was on leave at the relevant time when the inspection was carried out. She was appointed as authorized Pharmacist. The petitioner did not challenge the issuance of process within a ( 2 ) reasonable period. The process was ordered by the learned Magistrate on 03-05-2006. The petitioner filed criminal writ petition No. 717/2008 in this Court on 20-10-2008. Within one month and few days, it came up for hearing. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 25-11-2008, dismissed the earlier writ petition No. 717/2008. The order reads as follows : “After extensively arguing the matter, at the stage of dictation of the order, Mr. J.N. Singh wants to withdraw the writ petition. He is allowed to do so. Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to avail any other remedy.” 3. The petitioner thereafter filed criminal revision application before the learned Sessions Judge alongwith criminal misc. application No. 21/2009 for condonation of delay. The delay was of 1122 days. The explanation for the delay was that the petitioner had ventilated her grievances by filing criminal writ petition No. 717/2008 and, therefore, time was spent in ( 3 ) this Court, but since withdrawal of that petition was allowed with liberty to avail any other remedy, the revision application was being filed. The learned Sessions Judge did not find favour with the petitioner and did not appreciate the explanation as a reasonable cause for the delay. The application was, therefore, dismissed. This order alongwith the order of issuance of process is being challenged in the present petition. 4. It is manifest that the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition was rather tactical because the order itself shows that the learned Judge of this Court (Chandiwal, J.) was about to dictate the order when the request for withdrawal came. The liberty to avail any other remedy does not imply condonation of the delay which was caused uptill the date of filing of writ petition No. 717/2008. There was no explanation furnished as to the delay which had been caused uptill the filing of criminal writ petition No. 717/2008 in this Court. Obviously, for want of sufficient explanation, the delay caused in filing the revision application could not have been condoned. May be that ( 4 ) the petitioner can make out a good defence out of the admitted position, but the present petition suffers from delay and latches and, therefore, it is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp683-09