IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3870 OF 2007. Shreehari Gangaram Patil & Ors. ..Applicants. versus M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amol Patankar, for the Applicants. Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Mr.Yogesh Israni, i/b. M/s. Gajaria & Co., for the Respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. : 10th September 2008. P.C.: 1. On the last date, this Application was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The first Respondent filed a private compliant in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging commission of offences under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued on the said complaint on 26th : 2 : September 2006. The Applicants herein filed a Revision Application for challenging the order issuing process. There was a delay in filing Revision Application. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay was filed. By an order dated 22nd October 2007, the said application for condonation of delay was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. This is the order which is under challenge in this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants has invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the Applicant No.1 and 2 are old persons aged about 76 years and 80 years respectively and they are suffering from various ailments. He submitted that the certificates issued by the medical practicioner were placed on record. He submitted that a liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the Sessions Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent invited my attention to the medical : 3 : certificates on which reliance was placed by the Applicants. He submitted that in so far the second Applicant is concerned, the certificate relied upon in the Application has been issued by an Ophthalmologist regarding the age related disease relating to eyes. He submitted that the ground for the condonation of delay in the Application is that the second Applicant was suffering from high blood pressure etc. He pointed out that no certificate to that effect was produced by the Applicant. He submitted that in so far as third Applicant is concerned, there is no ground set out for condonation of delay in the said application. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The delay in filing Revision Application was of 260 days. In the application, it is stated that the age of the first Applicant was 76 years and that the first Applicant is suffering from a heart disease. A certificate is placed on record issued by a physician in which it is stated that the first Applicant is suffering from heart disease, diabetes and hyper-tension and he : 4 : has undergone a heart surgery three years back. It is stated that the age of the second Applicant was 80 years and he was suffering from various ailments. The certificate dated 7th September 2007 issued by the Ophthalmologist records the age of the second Applicant is 80 years and that he is suffering from age related macular degeneration and is suffering from vitreous haemorrhage and that he has been advised to avoid travelling. In view of these two certificates, sufficient cause is made out in so far as Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. In so far as Applicant No.3 is concerned, there is no reason assigned whatsoever in this application for condonation of delay. There is no explanation for delay in so far as the third Applicant is concerned. Even the age of the third Applicant is not disclosed in the said application. In fact, there is not even an averment which specifically refers to the third Applicant. Therefore, no case was made out for condonation of delay in so far as third Applicant is concerned. : 5 : 5. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 22th October 2007 is quashed and set aside in so far as first and the second Respondents are concerned. The order stands confirmed in so far as it relates to third Applicant. (2) The application for condonation of delay (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1302/2007 in Criminal Revision Application Stamp No.4740/2007) is allowed in so far as the first and the second Applicants are concerned. The learned Sessions Judge shall order registration of the Criminal Revision Application. The Criminal Revision Application shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event, on or before the end of the year 2008. (3) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. : 6 : [ A.S.OKA,J.] A.S.OKA,J.] A.S.OKA,J.]