:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2324 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industires Ltd. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Nenny Joseph i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Nirav Kumar Singh for the Respondents 2 and 3. Ms. R.M.Gadhavi , APP. for the State. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 8th August, 2008 PC : 1. Heard both sides. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal. On hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, I find that the arguable points are made out in the application. It may be stated here that, at the out set, it was sought to be argued that the application is barred by limitation as it is filed after more than 60 days after passing of the impugned order. It was sought to be contended that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushalya Rani Vs. Gopal Singh reported in A.I.R.1964 S.C. 260 a period for obtaining certified copy cannot be excluded while calculating the limitation. The reliance was also placed upon the full bench Judgment of this court in the case of Anjanabai :2: Yeshwant Rao Vs. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe reported in A.I.R.1961 Bom. 154. On this point the Advocate for the respondent has pointed out a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case Lala Ram Vs. Harim Ram reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1093. In this judgment after referring the judgment in Kaushalya Rani (supra) as well as full bench judgment of this court in the case of Anjanabai Vs. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao (supra) in Para-9 categorically held that 60 days limitation prescribed by Section 417(3) is a period of limitation within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. In another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mangu Ram Vs. Delhi Municipality reported in A.I.R.1976 S.C.105, the Apex Court distinguished the earlier judgment of Kaushalya Rani and held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to an application under Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978. In view of the above judgment there is no substance in the preliminary objection which is raised on behalf of the respondent on the merits of the case. In my view after considering the record the question as to whether there was any payment of bill of exchange requires serious reconsideration. It is sought to be argued that the bill of exchange was executed by the person who was not authorised. Prima facie, I find from the record that there is no document to show that the bill of exchange was signed by P.W.2 who was duly authorised company secretary. Since matter requires :3: reconsideration, leave granted. Office to number the appeal. Application is disposed off. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 1. By a separate order passed today, leave has been granted. Hence, appeal admitted. office to number the appeal. Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 in the application waives notice in the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)