1 cri.appln 2965-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2965 OF 2009 Citizen Credit Co-op.Bank Ltd. ...Applicant VS. Mr.Armando Aquino & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Suneet Moholkar i/b. Mr.Gabriel Pillai for the Applicant. Mr.Yuvraj P. Narvankar i/b. M/s.Khaitan & Jaykar for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : APRIL 19, 2011 P.C :- Heard. Perused the application, annexures thereto and the reply dated 9th April, 2011. The applicant is seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the time was essentially lost in pursuit of the wrong remedy i.e. writ petition preferred against the impugned order of acquittal dated 29th November, 2006; and following the permission granted 2 cri.appln 2965-2009 by this Court to withdraw the said writ petition and to file an appeal against the acquittal along with an application for condonation of delay vide order dated 19th November, 2007 in Writ Petition 401/2007, the present application along with the leave application was filed. Learned Advocate Mr.Moholkar for the applicant submits that whatever delay as suggested in the reply has occurred in approaching this Court, the same needs to be condoned for the reason that the issues involved in the lis proposed to be moved are substantial and it involves public money. He further submitted that from the tenor of the order passed in the writ petition, it is not difficult to read therefrom the judicial intent of the condonation of delay in the present case. Learned Advocate Mr.Narvankar for the contesting respondent submits that condonation of delay without there being any explanation therefor 3 cri.appln 2965-2009 is unjustified and casual approach of the applicant in pursuing the present application needs to be deprecated. At the outset it needs to be observed that the length of the delay is of lesser consequence than the causes leading to such delay. In the instant case, it is revealed that the Co-operative Bank-the applicant had taken steps for redressal of its grievance soon after the impugned order dated 29th November, 2006 was passed. However, the same were found to be erroneous and as such, liberty to retrace its steps and to take recourse to appropriate remedy was sought by the applicant in Writ Petition No.401/2007. Order dated 19th November, 2007 in Writ Petition No.401/2007 shows that such liberty was granted. Application for delay condonation reveals that the affirmation of the said application was done on 27th November, 2007. However, it appears that 4 cri.appln 2965-2009 initial enthusiasm to take steps was doused for sometime and the application for condonation of delay came to be presented as disclosed in the affidavit in reply dated 12th March, 2008 i.e. after one year and 13 days after disposal of the writ petition. Certainly, one can see that Bank did approach its legal advisors or those who pursue their matters in the court promptly after the writ petition was withdrawn. Blame perhaps lies with the persons in charge of the present application in the court and not with the applicant Bank. Delay is condoned. Service of notice of the leave application is waived. Post the leave application on 26th April, 2011. (U.D. SALVI, J.)