THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1721 OF 2010 DATED:04.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 15.07.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.1146 of 2009 in C.R.P.No. of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, wherein the application filed for condoning the delay of 137 days in filing the petition against the order, dismissing the complaint for default, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondent- accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 28.03.2008. As seen from the copy of the docket proceedings, the matter underwent several adjournments for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and on every occasion the complainant was absent and no representation was made on his behalf. Ultimately, on 18.11.2008, the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C., as the complainant was absent and no representation was made on his behalf even on that day and observing that the complainant was not showing any interest to proceed with the case. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed revision petition with a delay of 137 days. For condoning the said delay, he filed Crl.M.P.No1146 of 2009 under Rule 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Petitioner sought to explain the said delay by throwing the blame on his counsel stating that he was not informed by his counsel about the various dates of adjournment the case has undergone. 4. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, petitioner, who filed the complaint, ought to have been diligent in prosecuting the matter but has not evinced any interest for over a period of more than six months to proceed with the matter and even the sworn statement of the petitioner could not be recorded though the matter underwent several adjournments and on every occasion the petitioner was absent and no representation was made on his behalf. Even after dismissal of the complaint also, petitioner has not evinced any interest inasmuch as when the complaint was dismissed on 12.11.2008 Copy Application for obtaining copy of the said order was filed nearly six months later on 12.05.2009. The conduct of the petitioner in not appearing before the Court for over six months after filing of the complaint and not even bothering to file a Copy Application for about six months after dismissal of the complaint amply shows the total lack of diligence on his part. Without explaining the latches and delay on his part, petitioner has resorted to blaming the counsel stating that the counsel has not informed about the dates of adjournment or about the dismissal of the complaint. In the absence of any affidavit filed by the said counsel, the allegation made by the petitioner remains totally unsubstantiated. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained and therefore the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of the delay, holding that there are no tenable grounds to consider the request of the petitioner. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th July, 2011. Tsy