1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. APPR 80/2011 IN Criminal Revision Application No. /2011 Sau. Devaki W/o Jiwandas Wanjari V/s. The State of Maharashtra through P.I. Sitabuldi P.S., Nagpur and another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. K. Gulhane, Counsel for Applicant Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 11th August 2011 1. Heard. 2. It appears that the applicant is an old lady of 72 years, whose grievance is that her daughter Ku. Malti Wanjari died in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2 was prosecuted in a Summary Criminal Case No. 16687/2006, under Section 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 187, 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 3. It is grievance of the applicant that she never received any summons in the said case. According to her, 2 although the number of witnesses were cited by prosecution but only one witness was examined, who is also declared hostile on the ground that he did not know as to why police obtained his signature. Thus, the prosecution failed to examine witnesses despite opportunity was granted, on this sole ground, the learned trial Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent no. 2. Under these circumstances, on behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the prosecution could have procured the attendance of the material witnesses during course of the trial. The failure of the prosecution in examining the witnesses resulted in miscarriage of the justice and, secondly, injustice to the applicant. 4. In view of the contentions, learned A.P.P. left it to the discretion of the Court to pass an appropriate order while learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 opposed the statement and contended that the respondent no.2 was acquitted long back on the ground that no evidence was led by the prosecution except one hostile witness against him. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when none of the family members of the revision petitioner were summoned and when it is specific case of the applicant that 3 except one hostile witness no other witnesses listed were examined by the prosecution. I think, delay in the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and prayer clause “1”, to be condoned. 6. The delay of 507 days caused in filing the application is condoned and no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances, since no reply was filed by respondent no. 2 to this application though sufficient opportunity was granted. 7. The Office Registry to admit the revision application and then call R&P. Revision Application shall be placed for final hearing after R&P is received. 8. Criminal Application is allowed. JUDGE Punde