Judgment
apl12.16 26
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.12 OF 2016
Manish s/o Purushottam Gawande
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o Teacher Colony, Near Gajanan
Maharaj Mandir, Mukund Nagar,
Akola, Taluka and District Akola. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
Santosh s/o Arjunrao Berad,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Akot, Taluka Akot, District Akola. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri A.D. Girdekar, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.B. Mirza, Counsel for the non-applicant.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JUNE 27, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri A.D. Girdekar for .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:49 ::: Judgment apl12.16 26 2 the applicant and learned counsel Shri A.B. Mirza for the non- applicant.
2. By the present application, the applicant is challenging judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2013 by which the revisional Court upset order passed by learned Magistrate in S.C.C. No.473 of 2009 dated 6.11.2012 whereby learned Magistrate rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Delay in filing complaint was 16 days. The original complainant submitted the reasons for not filing the complaint within a stipulated period. The revisional Court, after noticing the reasons, found that the grand-mother of the original complainant was not keeping good health and, therefore, the complaint could not be filed within a stipulated .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:49 ::: Judgment apl12.16 26 3 period. The revisional Court has exercised its discretion by appreciating the reasons given by complainant for delay. In my view, there is no perversity in the order passed by learned revisional Court warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:49 :::