1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2007 NO.180 OF 2007 NO.180 OF 2007 inin in CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2004 Jaiprakash Jaiprakash Jaiprakash Shrivastav Shrivastav Shrivastav & ors .. & ors .. & ors .. Applicants Applicants Applicants vs vs vs Promila Promila Promila Rajendra Rajendra Rajendra Kapoor & ors.. Respondents Kapoor & ors.. Respondents Kapoor & ors.. Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b M/s M.V.Kini &Co Sr.Counsel i/b M/s M.V.Kini &Co Sr.Counsel i/b M/s M.V.Kini &Co for for for Applicants Applicants Applicants Ms.Promila Ms.Promila Ms.Promila K.Kapoor, K.Kapoor, K.Kapoor, Respondent in person present Respondent in person present Respondent in person present Mr.D.P.Adsule, Mr.D.P.Adsule, Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP APP APP for Respondent no.2 for Respondent no.2 for Respondent no.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J B.H.MARLAPALLE, J B.H.MARLAPALLE, J DATED DATED DATED : : : 11th July, 2007 11th July, 2007 11th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. The applicants had approached this Court in The applicants had approached this Court in The applicants had approached this Court in Criminal Criminal Criminal Writ Petition No.2561 of 2004 and prayed Writ Petition No.2561 of 2004 and prayed Writ Petition No.2561 of 2004 and prayed for for for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal case quashing of the proceedings in Criminal case quashing of the proceedings in Criminal case No.484/S/98 No.484/S/98 No.484/S/98 so so so far as they are concerned. However, far as they are concerned. However, far as they are concerned. However, the the the said petition came to be dismissed in default said petition came to be dismissed in default said petition came to be dismissed in default on on on account of conditional order passed by this account of conditional order passed by this account of conditional order passed by this Court Court Court on 30th January, 2006. Hence, this on 30th January, 2006. Hence, this on 30th January, 2006. Hence, this application application application for restoration of the said Writ for restoration of the said Writ for restoration of the said Writ Petition. Petition. Petition. 2.2.2. The office note shows that the application is The office note shows that the application is The office note shows that the application is made made made beyond time by 1 year and 9 days. The beyond time by 1 year and 9 days. The beyond time by 1 year and 9 days. The original original original complainant and present respondent no.1 complainant and present respondent no.1 complainant and present respondent no.1 Ms.Promila Ms.Promila Ms.Promila Rajendra Kapoor is present as party in Rajendra Kapoor is present as party in Rajendra Kapoor is present as party in 2 person person person and she has placed before her written and she has placed before her written and she has placed before her written submissions submissions submissions alongwith alongwith alongwith copy of the booklet published copy of the booklet published copy of the booklet published by by by M/s Indo French Biotech Enterprises Ltd to the M/s Indo French Biotech Enterprises Ltd to the M/s Indo French Biotech Enterprises Ltd to the accused accused accused no.1 no.1 no.1 3.3.3. The delay caused in filing this application has The delay caused in filing this application has The delay caused in filing this application has been been been explained and I am satisfied that the same explained and I am satisfied that the same explained and I am satisfied that the same deserves deserves deserves to be condoned but by levying exemplary to be condoned but by levying exemplary to be condoned but by levying exemplary costs. costs. costs. 4.4.4. Hence, the delay of 1 year and 9 days in filing Hence, the delay of 1 year and 9 days in filing Hence, the delay of 1 year and 9 days in filing this this this application is hereby condoned subject to application is hereby condoned subject to application is hereby condoned subject to payment payment payment of costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. of costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. of costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. Application Application Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause is allowed in terms of prayer clause is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (a). (a). The cost amount shall be paid to the original The cost amount shall be paid to the original The cost amount shall be paid to the original complainant/respondent complainant/respondent complainant/respondent no.1 by demand draft or in no.1 by demand draft or in no.1 by demand draft or in cash cash cash within a period of two weeks directly and in within a period of two weeks directly and in within a period of two weeks directly and in proof thereof receipt shall be placed before thereof receipt shall be placed before thereof receipt shall be placed before the the the trial Court within this period of two weeks. trial Court within this period of two weeks. trial Court within this period of two weeks. (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, (B.H.Marlapalle, J) J) J) 3 ....... ....... .......