1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5698 OF 2009 CBI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, .Applicant Mumbai V/s. Vimal Kumar Manmohan Dayal & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP, for the Applicant  CBI Mr.M.G.Shukla, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mr.B.B.Acharya, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. This is an application for condonation of delay of 228 days in seeking leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 7 & 13(2) read 2 with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The application as initially filed mentioned that there was only 110 days delay in seeking leave to file an appeal. Respondent No.2 filed an Affidavit pointing out that the delay was of 229 days. The learned APP for CBI states that the delay is, in fact, of 228 days and therefore, he sought leave to amend which has been granted and amendment has been carried out forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the particulars of a movement of papers given in synopsis show first that the certified copy was received late by CBI. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that when the respondents could get the certified copy on 5th February, 2009, it is not clear as to how CBI could get the certified copy on 6th March, 2009. The registry of this Court may issue appropriate instructions to the trial Court to mention the date on which an applicant is called to receive 3 the copy so that this type of allegations would not again engage the time of this Court. Endorsement by City Civil Court shows that the copy was delivered to CBI on 6th March, 2009 without showing the date on which the copy was ready to be delivered to CBI, or the date on which CBI was called for to receive the copy. The learned counsel for the respondents next points out that lot of time was spent by the officers concerned in reading papers. Now, this depends upon workload with each office and the capacity of the officer to deal with the work load. Therefore, on this ground, the application cannot be assailed. The learned APP for CBI relies on two Judgments of the Supreme Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V.Ayisumma, reported at AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2750 to support his contention that it may not be necessary to seek explanation of each day's delay as also for refusal to condone the delay in meritorious matter would be 4 improper. As observed in State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, reported at AIR 2000 SC 2306 it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The learned APP for CBI also relied on an order of this Court in Criminal Application No.5467 of 2009 dated 21st April, 2011 where similar application for condonation of delay of 232 days for seeking leave to file an appeal by CBI was allowed relying on the two same Judgments of the Supreme Court. In view of this, application is allowed. Delay is condoned. List the application for leave to file an appeal on 14 th December, 2011. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)