Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being finally decided at the stage of admission. 2. Heard rival submissions on this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Nanded. 3. The facts of the present matter are rather peculiar in nature. Present petitioner – original complainant had initially lodged the Police complaint against four accused persons – present respondents for taking action against them under Section 324, 504, 506 read with sec.34 of Indian Penal Code. On the strength of the said complaint to the Police, case was registered against present respondents. Matter was finally heard and ended in acquittal vide order dated 10.7.2009. That order of acquittal was challenged by the present petitioner by filing Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2011 before this Court along with the application for condonation of delay of eleven days. Said eleven days delay was condoned. However, when the Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2011 was pending, a prayer was made on behalf of the present petitioner that he wanted to withdraw the revision petition and to take appropriate action as available under the law by way of liberty to file appeal before the learned Sessions Court under the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. On such prayer, this Court (Coram : Shrihari P.Davare, J.) passed order on 1.8.2011 allowing the withdrawal of Criminal Revision Application No.170 of 2011. Liberty, as prayed for was granted. However, it was made clear that the aspect of limitation shall play its own role and if the applicant prefers any application for condonation of delay before the Sessions Court, it shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court along with the application for condonation of delay of 25 days in preferring the appeal. Said application was finally heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilili, District Nanded. Prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order of acquittal, was rejected. This is the order challenged before this Court in present writ petition. 4. Said application was finally heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 28.8.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilili, District Nanded. Prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order of acquittal, was rejected. This is the order challenged before this Court in present writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact, there was no scope for the original complaint – present petitioner to take recourse to proviso to Section 372, Cr.P.C. as the said amendment was effected since December 2009 whereas the impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court in August 2009. All the same, it is submitted on behalf of respondents that of his own volition, the petitioner had withdrawn the criminal revision application filed before the High Court and chose to prefer appeal, erroneously, before the Sessions Court, that also with delay of 25 days. 5. After considering the rival submissions and considering the factual position as above, it is not in the fitness of the situation to re-agitate the said issue mainly on account of laches on part of the complainant. Though during the arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner – complainant has stated that complainant is an illiterate person, still the fact remains that the complainant was represented by the able lawyer; even at the time of trial before the J.M.F.C. and also before the High Court, when the matter was taken in Criminal Revision and withdrawn on instructions. In any event, there is no substance in the present writ petition seeking challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 and hence, present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.