1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CRI. APPLN NO. 2720/2009 IN APPLN NO.2719/2009 CORAM : V. R. KINGAONKAR, ,J. DATE : 12th october, 2009. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) in a criminal case bearing STCC No.4493/2006. By the impugned judgment dated 06/03/2008 the respondent came to be acquitted. The delay caused in filing of the appeal is of 95 days. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. I have given through the explanation given in paragraph No.6 to 8 of the application. It is the contention of the applicant that he was required to attend various other criminal cases pertaining to the cheque bouncing in STCC No.3326/2004, 4489/2006, 4495/2006, 4494/2006 which were pending before the Courts of Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar, against the respondent. He submits that he was required to attend all the courts at Ahmednagar and Shrirampur. He had inadvertently 2 failed to file application for leave to appeal in time. He applied for certified copy on 18.07.2008 which was received by him on 13.08.2008. He could not file the appeal due to the pendency of other criminal cases which he was required to attend. 3. The application does not show even remotely that the applicant was unable to file the appeal after 13.08.2008 i.e after receiving the certified copy of the judgment under challenge. There is delay of about four months from the date of receiving of the said certified copy for which there is absolutely no explanation coming forth. Only explanation offered by the applicant is that the delay was not intentional and it was due to bona fide mistake that he had lost site of the impugned order of the acquittal. It may be that he had in inadvertently lost sight of the order of the acquittal when it was rendered. However, when he obtained the certified copy on 13.08.2008, then there was no question of his forgetting about the order of acquittal. Considering absence of any explanation for the delay between 13.08.2008 to 03.08.2009 I find it difficult to condone the delay for want of sufficient cause as contemplated under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1953. Hence, application is dismissed. [ V. R. KINGAONKAR ,J. ] Dt :- 12.10.2009 aaa/2720.09 ****