1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application Nos.348 & 234 both of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2010 [Shakil Ahmed Kamal Ahmed Siddiki & ors. Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.R. Wagh, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 04th May, 2010. 1. It is seen that on 31st March, 2010, this Court passed order on Criminal Application No. 234 of 2010 for suspension of sentence, and suspended the sentence only for four weeks, which time was to expire on or about 30th April, 2010. 2. It is seen that in the meantime, the applicants had filed Criminal Application No. 336 of 2010 and prayed for enlargement of time for filing of a paper-book. Eight weeks' time was granted as prayed for. 3. The applicants have now, i.e., after six days of grant of enlargement of time for furnishing paper-book, moved another application, namely Criminal Application No. 348 of 2010, for suspension of sentence. This 2 application was not moved simultaneously with the application for enlargement of time, as it was filed later, i.e., on 30th April, 2010. Learned Adv. Mr. Wagh for the applicants states that the applicants were not available when earlier Application No.336 of 2010 was moved and application, namely Criminal Application No. 348 of 2010 was filed lateron. 4. The Applicants are not absolved of their responsibility to bring to the notice of the Court that the suspension of sentence was restricted for four weeks only, and in that background, due to non-availability of the applicants, it had become necessary for them to apply for extension of time for filing a private paper-book. 5. Nothing had prevented the applicants from fairly disclosing to the Court whatever were the difficulties, and this Court would have looked into the problems sympathetically. The approach adopted by the applicants is certainly improper. 6. This Court, therefore, is of the view that suspension of sentence was granted only for four weeks to enable the applicants to file a paper-book so as to hear appeal as quickly as possible and even sooner the paper-book is filed. 7. It seems that the applicants are not interested in hearing and simply want to enjoy 3 the liberty. 8. In view of this, the application for suspension if sentence is rejected. 9. The applicants are given liberty to furnish a private paper-book with a leave to move for hearing of appeal on the opening day, namely 7th June, 2010 if paper-book is filed before said due date. 10. Criminal Application Nos. 234 and 348 both of 2010 are hereby rejected. Judge |Hedau|