((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1830 OF 2008 Salim Ibrahim Khatib Petitioner versus Yakub Mohd. Salhe Surve & anr. Respondents Vishal C. Ghosalkar for petitioner. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1881"). The process was issued on the said complaint and the trial commenced. The process was issued on 14th July 2006. A revision application was filed by the applicant for challenging the order of issue of process. The said revision application was filed on 28th December 2007. As there was a delay of 523 days, a separate application for condonation of ((-2-)) delay was filed. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a revision application was filed by the petitioner only after it was brought to his notice that there is no proper verification of the complaint recorded in terms of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973"). He submitted that immediately after the said defect was noticed, the revision application was filed. He submitted that as the said defect goes to the root of the matter, the delay ought to have been condoned. 3. I have considered the submissions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that when the application for condonation of delay was filed, the complaint was already fixed for recording of statement of the accused under section 313 of the said Code of 1973. The learned Sessions Judge noted that the petitioner has participated in trial by cross examining the witnesses of the complainant. Considering these facts it was held that there was no sufficient explanation for delay of 523 ((-3-)) days. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. 4. It is, however, made clear that it is always open for the petitioner to urge the contentions which he was seeking to urge by filing the revision application and all the contentions are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)