1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 698 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO.52 OF 2008. Smt. Najerabee w/o. Sk.Gulab, age 38 years, occ. nil, R/o. Badnapur, dist. Jalna, at present at Aurangabad. - - - Petitioner versus 1. Sk. Gulab Sk. Ismail, age 45 years, occ. service, R/o. Sanjaynagar Galli No.1, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. 2. Sk. Raseed Sk. Ismail, age 40 years, occ. service, R/o. Sanjaynagar, Mukundwadi, Taluka and dist. Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra. - -Respondents Shri M. D. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. None for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri K. G. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.3 - State. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 7th August 2009 2 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant who has filed Criminal Revision challenging the order of acquittal dated 27-9-2007 passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. All the accused including husband of the complainant applicant were acquitted. The said judgment is found at Exhibit A in the paper book. 2. I have perused the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has made all efforts to secure the presence of the complainant i.e. the present applicant who did not remain present to give evidence against the accused to substantiate the charge of both mental and physical cruelty and other charges against which the accused were being tried. It is also seen that there is delay of 56 days in filing criminal revision. She also prayed for condonation of said delay stating that she had 3 no money to engage Advocate and incur the expenditure for filing criminal revision in the High Court. Her brother is a poor labourer. The fact is that the present criminal revision application is being prosecuted by an Advocate which arrangement could have been possible even on time. Even on merit also matter was heard. I have gone through the memo of criminal revision application. There are no specific accusation and details about the demand of dowry and physical and mental cruelty. The applicant is separately living from the husband from 2003 and thereafter she filed complaint under section 498A of I.P. Code against husband and in-laws. 3. I have heard learned A.P.P. Shri Patil. There is no appeal filed against the said order. 4. Upon consideration of the record and after hearing the Counsel, it is seen that there is no satisfactory explanation and the alleged ground cannot be considered a sufficient ground to 4 condone the delay and as such, the said Criminal Application stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. 5. In view of disposal of Criminal Application for condonation of delay, Criminal Revision Application St.No. 52 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) pnk/cria69808