{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5243 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1293 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1292 OF 2011 Nuruddin s/o Md. Idris Chaudhari Applicant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 Omprakash s/o Dhondiram Mane Respondents Mr.H.I.Pathan,, advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 14 th December, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 On the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave to correct. 3 This is an application preferred by the applicant – original complainant for condonation of delay and extension of time to deposit the amount of costs, as directed by this Court by order dated 29.09.2011 in Criminal Application No.1293 of 2011. {2} 4 It appears that the applicant has preferred Criminal Application No.1293/2011 for condonation of delay of 513 days caused in filing the accompanying Criminal Appeal, challenging the impugned order dated 27.08.2009, thereby dismissing the Complaint of the applicant – original complainant for want of prosecution and acquitting the accused – present Respondent No. 2. The said application was considered by this Court on its own merits and same was allowed by this Court by order dated 29.09.2011 and delay of 513 days was directed to be condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited in this Court within one month and Criminal Application No.1293/2011 was disposed of by the said order dated 29.09.2011. 5 However, the applicant herein failed to deposit said costs of Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the said order dated 29.09.2011 in this Court. Hence, the applicant has preferred present application for condonation of delay and for extension of time to deposit the said costs in this Court, as per order dated 29.09.2011. 6 The applicant contends that after passing the said order dated 29.09.2011, there was Diwali Vacation from 24.10.2011 to 05.11.2011 and completion of one month period for depositing costs came in said vacation and as the office of the Court was closed, he could not deposit the amount of costs immediately after {3} reopening of the Court. The applicant also contends that he could not arrange costs amount of Rs.20,000/- within time. He further contends that the advocate for the applicant informed the applicant on 21.11.2011 that by order dated 29.09.2011, the application for condonation of delay was allowed subject to depositing costs of Rs.20,000/- within one month. The applicant further contends that he requested to seek time from this Court to deposit the amount of costs, as inadvertently, the condition in the said order has not been communicated to the applicant. The sum and substance of the grounds in the application is that the applicant is a practising advocate before the trial Court and although the order dated 29.09.2011 was communicated to him, inadvertently, the condition to deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- within one month was not communicated to him by his advocate in this Court and, therefore, the applicant could not deposit costs of Rs. 20,000/- in this Court within a period of one month as per direction dated 29.09.2011. 7 Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, opposed this application vehemently and submitted that the grounds put forth by the applicant for condonation of delay to deposit the amount of costs and for extension of time are contradictory to each other and submitted that assuming for the sake of assumption without admitting that the advocate for the applicant in this Court communicated the order to the applicant {4} on 21.11.2011, then there is no question of raising the ground of Diwali Vacation and the period of one month falling in the said Vacation. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 also submitted that present application preferred by the applicant is not bona fide and it appears to have been preferred to protract the matter deliberately. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 further submitted that Respondent No.2 is a responsible police officer and he is unnecessarily dragged into the Court litigation by the applicant, who is a practising advocate before the trial Court and if the present application is allowed, great prejudice would be caused to him. Alternatively, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that if this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the present application, heavy costs be saddled upon the applicant. 8 On perusal of the order dated 29.09.2011, passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1293/2011, and after perusal of the contents of the present application and on considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for respective parties, it is apparent that the order dated 29.09.2011 is explicitly clear that the delay of 513 days was condoned by this Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the applicant in this Court within a period of one month. However, admittedly the applicant failed to comply with the said condition and did not deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- within the said stipulated period. Hence, the applicant has preferred present {5} application. However, it appears that the grounds put forth by the applicant in the present application are apparently contradictory to each other, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. However, apart from that, the interest of justice warrants that an opportunity be given to the applicant to deposit said costs of Rs.20,000/-, as directed by this Court by order dated 29.09.2011 to enable him to prosecute the further proceedings on its own merits and hence, time is required to be extended to deposit the said costs of Rs.20,000/- in this Court, by allowing the present application in the interest of justice, but simultaneously, Respondent No.2 herein also deserves to be compensated aptly. Hence present application is required to be allowed subject to payment of reasonable costs, by the Applicant to Respondent No.2 within the stipulated period and the said cost is quantified at Rs. 5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) and the said stipulated period is determined till 23.12.2011. 9 In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) thereof and delay caused in depositing the amount of costs of Rs.20,000/-, as per order dated 29.09.2011, stands condoned and time stands extended to deposit costs of Rs. 20,000/-, as per order dated 29.09.2011, till 23.12.2011, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) by the applicant to Respondent No.2 till 23.12.2011 under the present Application. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to deposit both the costs {6} – Rs.20,000/- as per order dated 29.09.2011 and costs of Rs. 5000/- awarded as per this order, till 23.12.2011, Criminal Appeal No.1292/2011 shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. 10 Present Application is disposed of accordingly. SHRIHARI P.DAVARE JUDGE adb/cria524311