1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2009 Jagdish Ratanlal Agrawal Vs. Laxmikant Fakirchand Sureka & Ano. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri S. R. Deshpande Adv for applicant. Shri A. V. Bhide Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 21 st JUNE, 2010. . Heard counsel for the applicant and the respondents. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It appears that the present applicant who is a complainant had preferred an appeal before the District Court against the order of acquittal. Order of acquittal was passed by the learned Magistrate on 27.04.2009. When the appeal was preferred before the District Judge the learned District Judge who dealt with the appeal found that the appeal did not lie against the order of acquittal before him or before the Sessions Judge. In the circumstances he dismissed the appeal and 2 now this revision has been preferred against the original order of acquittal. Applicant seeks to condone the delay on the ground that proceedings were bonafide prosecuted before the Court which had no jurisdiction. 3. Shri Bhide learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the delay should not be condoned by the Court. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the appeal was preferred due to the wrong advise given by the counsel and the amendment had in fact not come into force on that date and therefore appeal could not lie before the Sessions Judge. This revision has been preferred immediately after the appeal was decided. In the circumstances I find that there was a bonafide prosecution of appeal in wrong Court. In the circumstances the delay stands condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6