JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The petitioner-Central Bureau of Investigation ['CBI'] seeks to maintain this revision petition against the order dated 05.05.2016, as passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Shillong discharging all the accused persons in Special (CBI) Case No. 5 of 2009 arising out of RC-6(A) 2009-CBI-SHG. 2. This revision petition is reportedly time-barred by a period of 220 days. 3. The petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, essentially with the submissions that processing of the matter in the office of the Special Public Prosecutor and then, at the Headquarter and Zonal offices took extra time; and the initial sanction for filing of the revision petition was sent on 21.12.2016 but the final approval from the Central Government was conveyed only on 07.03.2017 and thereafter, this petition was drafted and filed on 22.03.2017. 4. Another reason stated in the application is that three of the accused persons in the present case had earlier filed three revision petitions and co-relating of the orders passed in such revision petitions with the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 took extra time. 5. The contesting respondents have filed their respective objections against the application seeking condonation of delay, essentially with the submissions that on the own showing of the petitioner, there had been want of reasonable diligence and the petitioner had proceeded as if having no respect for the law of limitation. It is also submitted that even after the decision had been taken to file the revision petition in the month of December 2016, the petition, in fact, came to be filed only in the month of March 2017 without any explanation for the delay and lethargy on the part of the petitioner. 6. True it is that the revision petition is delayed by a period of 220 days and the particulars of the file movements, as stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, do not lead to the satisfaction that the matter was proceeded with expedition but, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the matter involved examination of voluminous documents and the learned Special Judge had passed a detailed order while discharging the respondents. The suggestion, that co-relating other orders passed in the revision petitions filed by three of the accused persons with the order impugned consumed some extra time, cannot be rejected as altogether fanciful or unbelievable. 7. The suggestion, that co-relating other orders passed in the revision petitions filed by three of the accused persons with the order impugned consumed some extra time, cannot be rejected as altogether fanciful or unbelievable. 7. The matter involves offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC as also Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of misuse of office and siphoning off the public funds. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the cause stated in the application seeking condonation of delay. 8. For what has been observed here in above, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The revision petition is taken on the regular side; be registered and be placed for admission after two weeks. 9. Crl. M.C. No. 6 of 2017 stands disposed of.