1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2011 (Murlidhar Durgaji Sakharkar .v. State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Deshpande, APP for the respondent No.1/State. Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 03RD OCTOBER, 2011. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking condanation of delay of one year and 11 months in filing the revision. The only ground stated in the application is that one Shri Umesh Chandrawanshi, who was working as Manager of Mouda Branch at the relevant time and on whose complaint the offence was registered, was transferred and the person occupying the post thereafter got retired. In such circumstance, the matter was not attended. It is also further submitted in the application that the case papers were misplaced and the applicant could not lay his hands only on the xerox copy of the judgment of the trial Court and in such circumstance, the delay of one year and 11 months has been occurred. It is not in dispute that if there are just and sufficient reasons, the delay can be condoned. In the present application, only the ground given stating about the transfer of one Shri Umesh Chandrawanshi, who was working as Manager at the relevant time, was transferred and the person occupying the post succeeding Shri Chandrawanshi got retired. In the reply filed by the respondent No.2, it is specifically averred that these facts are not true and one Shri Raut was succeeding Shri Chandrawanshi as Manager of Mouda 2 Branch and is not retired but still working as Recovery Officer at Ramtek for Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank, Nagpur and the said Mouda Branch of this Bank is attached to the Ramtek Branch. In such situation, there is no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the officer incharge who was succeeding Shri Chandrawanshi stood retired and the matter was unattended. The other ground about misplacing of the documents is also not supported by any document such as to show that any step had taken by the officer incharge to find out the papers which are misplaced or fixing any responsibility to subordinate officers who were allegedly responsible for misplacing the documents. The delay which is nearly two years is not at all properly explained. In my opinion, as there are no just and sufficient grounds for condoning such delay of two years, the application is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.