1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1368 OF 2009 Arun S/o Laxmikantrao Aadhe Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. Darshan Kulkarni, Advocate i/b Mr. A. R. Mohre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent / State. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 1st OCTOBER, 2009. 1. Heard. Criminal Application No.312 of 2006 is filed challenging the order of 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2004 involving offence under section 409 of I.P.C. Since the matter was not attended on 18th June, 2009 the Revision Application came to be dismissed. The counsel submits, it was due to inadvertence the matter was not noticed resulting in such dismissal. 2. There is delay of 222 days in filing the application. It is not as simple as the counsel submits. By order dated 12th February, 2008 the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. record and proceedings were called and matter was indicated to be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Thereafter, on 18th June, 2008 and even prior to that on 11th June, 2008, none appeared for the applicant and it was specifically listed for dismissal. Since the Court recorded that on that day inspite of such communication none appeared, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. It is obvious, since the record and proceedings were called, the proceedings before the learned Judge were stalled and consequently it appears that the matter is dragged. The reasons assigned for condoning the delay are not adequate or sufficient. Even the verification is not by the Advocate but it is by some Clerk of the Advocate. In the situation, the application, seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:01/10/2009. ans/1368