1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2195 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1361 OF 2000 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2000 Superintendent of Police Applicant versus T.V.Ganesh and others and another Respondents H.V.Mehta for applicant. Roshan D’souza i/by M/s.Umesh Shetty & Co. for respondents 5 & 6 Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 012th June 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. The applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2000 for challenging an order passed by the learned Special Judge on 12th May 1999 by which the respondent nos.1 to 7 were discharged. As there was a delay in filing the revision application, Criminal Application No.1361 of 2000 for condonation of delay was filed by the applicant. All the respondents except 2 respondents 1 and 2 were served with the notice of the said delay condonation application. On 21st January 2003 conditional order was passed by this Court as notice to respondents 1 and 2 was not served. As conditional order became operative, Criminal Application No.1361 of 2000 and Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2000 were shown as dismissed. 2. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the revision application could have been dismissed at the most against first and second respondents as rest of the respondents were served. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth respondents has tendered reply in which the said respondents have opposed the prayer for restoration and condonation of delay. It is submitted that it is too late in the day to restore the matters which were dismissed in the year 2003. 4. A perusal of the record of Criminal Application No.1361 of 2000 shows that the respondent nos.3 to 7 were duly served. The respondent no.3 did not appear. The order dated 26th April 2001 records that the advocate for the respondent nos.4 to 7 had no objection if the delay was condoned. However, the delay was not condoned as respondents 1 and 2 were not served. A conditional 3 order was passed as respondents 1 and 2 were not served. Learned counsel for the applicants states that he is not pressing the revision application as against respondents 1 and 2. There is justification in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that delay condonation application and the revision application could not have been shown as dismissed against those respondents who were served. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- a) Criminal Application No.929 of 2005 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); b) Criminal Application No.2195 of 2003 is allowed; c) Criminal Application No.1361 of 2000 and Criminal Revision Application No.107 of 2000 are restored to file. (A.S.OKA, J.) 4 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1361 OF 2000 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2000 Superintendent of Police Applicant versus Thondkulam Venkataram Ganesh & others Respondents H.V.Mehta for applicant. Roshan D’souza i/by M/s.Umesh Shetty & Co. for respondents 5 & 6. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th June 2009 PC : 1. By a separate order this application has been restored. The application has been restored as against respondents 3 to 7. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent no.3 after service never appeared in this application and the advocate for the respondents 4 to 7 made a statement on 26th April 2001 that they had no objection for condonation of delay. Hence, this application is allowed. Delay is condoned. It is clarified that the application stands dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the criminal revision application will survive only as against respondents 3 to 8. The revision application shall be placed for admission on 22nd June 2009. 5 (A.S.OKA, J.)