Manish S/O Purushottam Gawande vs Santosh S/O Arjunrao Berad
2017 Latest Caselaw 3657 Bom

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/-

Judgment

apl12.16 26

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/-

Judgment

apl12.16 26

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 !!

...../-