IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 151 OF 2008 Ashok Krishnaji Shejal ..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s Suryakant Bhimrao Chadge & Anr. ..... ......Respondents. Mr.Tushare Sonawane, Adv. For the petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP For the respondent No.2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24/1/08 PC: This petition is directed against an order passed by revisional Court rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay of about 5 ½ years in questioning an order of issue process passed by the J.M.F.C. The petitioner who is a police inspector is being tried for alleged commission of offence under sections 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The process was issued on 2.7.01. The petitioner applied for bail and was released on bail on 25.2.02. Belatedly a revision was filed in the Sessions Court along with the application for condonation of delay in December, 2007. In the said application for condonation of delay following explanation is tendered : “The applicant is working as Police Inspector and it is transferrable job. The police machinery now a days is loaded with heavy work. Therefore, there is delay in filing the 1 revision application. ” 2. Finding that the explanation in relation to the delay of 5 ½ years is not satisfactory the application has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. V/s Ms.Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan v/s M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 to contend that the approach of the Court need to be liberal. He submits that the Court should be pragmatic and not pedantic while considering the application for condonation of delay. No one can dispute that in the matters of condonation of delay approach has to be liberal. But that does not mean that an inordinate delay need to be condoned even if the same is not properly explained. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments has no application to the facts of the present case. The view taken by the revisional Court is a possible view which does not need to be interfered with. In the result writ petition is dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that hearing be expedited. I hope and trust that as a period of almost seven years has lapsed the trial Court would endeavour to decide the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 24.1.08 2