1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.131 OF 2009 Deepak C. Joshi ...Petitioner vs. Lactos India Limited & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.J.S.Kini i/b Mr.Suresh Dubey for the petitioner Ms H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 3rd February 2009, notice before admission was issued by this court to the first respondent. The said notice was served and none appeared for the first respondent. Therefore, by order dated 23rd April 2009, notice was ordered to be issued by this court for final disposal at admission stage. Office noting shows that the said notice has been duly served to the first respondent. 2 The first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. On 29th December 2006, process was issued by the learned Magistrate. On 3rd October 2008, the applicant filed a revision application before the Sessions Court for challenging the order of issue of process. As there was a delay in filing the revision 2 application, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner asserted that he was not aware of the proceedings of the complaint and for the first time, he came to know about the complaint on 16th August 2008. It is pointed out that thereafter, he applied for certified copy of the order on 16th September 2008. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the learned Judge has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter and has erroneously rejected the application for condonation of delay. He invited my attention to the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. 3 The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted in the impugned order that the first respondent did not appear and contest the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, factual assertion that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings of the complaint on 16th August 2008 was not disputed by the first respondent. As stated earlier, after obtaining certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate, the revision application was filed on 3rd October 2008. In the circumstances, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the delay ought to have been condoned. 4 Hence,I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 8th December 2008 is quashed 3 and set aside and the Misc. application no.322 of 2008 is hereby allowed and delay in preferring the revision application is condoned. ii)The Sessions Court will now register the revision application and proceed with the same in accordance with law. To enable the petitioner to apply for appropriate relief, ad-interim order dated 3rd October 2009 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. JUDGE