1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 364/2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.........../2009 [Dadarao Bhimrao Deshmukh vs.Anil Shivajirao Dhamankar ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr Sachim Meshram, Adv.for applicant Mr Thakkar, Adv.for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : MARCH 2, 2010. Heard. 2 By this application, the applicant prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court was received on 23rd September 2009 though judgment was passed on 17.9.2009. However on 25.9.2009 the applicant met with an accident and was under medical treatment and could not approach the counsel at Nagpur for supplying necessary instructions and filing an appeal before the Court. Therefore, there was delay of 29 days in preferring the appeal. 3 Learned Advocate for the respondent vociferously objected the application on the ground that the respondent was acquitted by a well-reasoned order and as such, presumption of innocence was strengthened as against the respondent. It is further 2 contended that sufficient opportunity has already been granted and availed of by the learned Advocate for the applicant in order to produce documents in support of the application, which were directed to be produced by 22.2.2010. Thereafter also the documents have not been filed although it is contended that the complainant had met an accident on 25.9.2009 and was under medical treatment. The applicant could have filed documents, such as, copy of FIR, if any, regarding the accident as also medical papers from the concerned Doctor under whom he was taking medical treatment. 4 No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. In the absence of documents, the application being devoid of merits, deserve dismissal, which I direct. JUDGE sahare