( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2007 Mahendra Madanlal Saraf .. Applicant. Versus Vijay Shankar Maratkar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.R.B.Deshmukh i/b.Smt.Aparna More for applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for State. Mr.K.S.Patil for respondent Nos.1,2,4 to 7 and 8 to 13. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. DATED : 2nd June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.R.B.Deshmukh i/b.Smt. Aparna More for the applicant, Mr.Dedhia, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr.K.S.Patil for respondent Nos.1,2,4 to 7 and 8 to 13. Respondent Nos.3 and 8 not served. 2. The application for condonation of delay of 488 days is pending since June, 2007. Today it is pending for want of service upon respondent Nos.3 and 8. 3. I decided to take up the application on merits rather than waiting for service upon respondent Nos.3 and 8, keeping in view the delay of 488 days and the fact that the application for condonation of delay is pending since June, 2007. ( 2 ) 4. The respondents came to be tried by the learned J.M.F.C., Court No.2, Pune in R.C.C.No.63 of 1998 for charges under Section 143, 147, 326, 336 and 504 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C., Court No.2, Pune acquitted all the accused respondents by judgement dated 28.9.2005. It is an admitted position that this judgement and order is not challenged by the State. The applicant is original complainant and it appears that he was aggrieved by the order of acquittal. Hence, he filed this revision. The revision came to be filed beyond the period of limitation and there was a delay of 488 days. 5. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant. Perused the record. 6. The judgement is dated 28.9.2005. It is specifically admitted by the applicant that he applied for certified copy of the order on 11.10.2005 that is practically within 13 days from the date of the order. The application does not mention as to when the applicant came to know about the order of acquittal. 7. The text of the application goes to show that after the receipt of the certified copy of the order on 22.11.2005, some efforts were made by the applicant to have an Advocate engaged and, thereafter, filed the ( 3 ) petition. It is also seen that the applicant primarily depended upon the State to file an appeal and in the circumstances, the delay of 488 days has occurred. 8. Once the applicant received the certified copy of the order on 22.11.2005, it was possible for the applicant to file the revision as early as possible but the revision came to be filed on 12.6.2007. The reasons given in the application for explaining the delay of 488 days is not convincing and I am not inclined to grant this application. The delay is not explained properly as to why the applicant did not file this revision after he received the certified copy of the order on 22.11.2005 immediately. The application is required to be rejected. Hence the order :- a) Application for condonation of delay is rejected. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)