Otlal Purushottam Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6242 Bom

                                                              18-APPLN-150-2014.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2014

 OTLAL PURUSHOTTAM SINGH                                 )...APPLICANT

          V/s.

 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS


 Mr.A.A.Siddique, Advocate for the Applicant.

 Ms.N.S.Jain, APP for the Respondent - State.

 None for Respondent no.2.


                               CORAM      :      A. M. BADAR, J.

                               DATE       :      16th AUGUST 2017



 P.C. :


 1                This is an application for condonation of delay of 642 

days in filing an application for leave to appeal challenging

acquittal of respondent no.2 of the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

 avk                                                                        1/3





                                                               18-APPLN-150-2014.doc


 2                Heard   the   learned   advocate   appearing   for   the 

applicant. None for respondent no.2 / original accused despite

service.

3 In tune with pleadings in the application for

condonation of delay, it is argued that after judgment of acquittal,

the applicant has applied for certified copy of the judgment and

order. It is further argued that, thereafter, an application for leave

to appeal was drafted along with interim application therein. But

all of a sudden, the learned advocate engaged by the applicant

went to his native place at Allahabad without filing the application

for leave to appeal. It is further argued that the applicant is not

having knowledge of law regarding limitation and upon enquiry,

he found that his learned advocate Mr.M.P.Mishra has permanently

shifted to Allahabad. Therefore, the delay in filing the application

for leave to appeal has occasioned.

4 The application is on affidavit. Averments thereof are

not controverted by filing counter affidavit. There is no reason to

avk 2/3

18-APPLN-150-2014.doc

disbelieve duly sworned testimony of the applicant. The quantum

of delay is not material. What is material is reason given for

condonation of delay.

5 Considering the averments made in the application,

which went unchallenged, I am of the considered view that the

applicant has made out sufficient cause for not filing the

application for leave to appeal within limitation. Therefore, the

order :

i) The application is allowed.

ii) The delay in filing the application for leave to

appeal is condoned.

                                                     (A. M. BADAR, J.)




 avk                                                                            3/3