1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.711 of 2010 (Shri Ashok Madhav Pawanekar v. Shri Purushottam s/o Gopalrao Yadav) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.R. Puri, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 22 nd July, 2010 Heard respective counsel appearing for the parties. The impugned order is passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 26-10-2007 refusing to condone delay in presenting a complaint in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant/original complainant, instead of availing the remedy of presenting a revision application, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 26-10-2007 is challenged by presenting the instant application on 21-4-2010. The delay that has occasioned in approaching this Court has also not been properly explained. This Court, while directing issuance of notice, called upon the applicant to explain the delay occurred in approaching this Court as well as to further explain as to why the remedy of presenting a revision application before the Court of Session was not availed. There is no reasonable explanation in respect of the delay occasioned in approaching this Court. The appropriate remedy for 2 the applicant to raise a challenge to the impugned order is by way of presenting a revision application either to the Court of Session or to this Court. For the reasons stated above, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in the application presented under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application stands rejected. Judge. pdl.