MP 1 APPA182_08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2011 Namdeo Narayan Varade ... Applicant Versus Rameshwar Eknath Aadke and another ... Respondents Mr. Nilesh Wable, Advocate i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, for the Applicant. Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER 2011 P. C. : Not on Board. Taken on Board. 2. The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Application No. 182 of 2008 seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. The criminal case No. 1364 of 2004 filed by the present applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed on 04.02.2006 by the learned JMFC, Nashik Road and the accused was acquitted. It is contended that earlier the applicant had filed Revision Application No.133 of 2006, and after rejection of the said Revision Application, he was advised to prefer the appeal. However, a lot of time was taken in consultation with the Advocate as also in taking the certified copy. 3. It appears that the Revision Application No.133 of 2006, filed by the applicant, was dismissed on 08.06.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge MP 2 APPA182_08 pointing out that the appeal lies against the order of acquittal. According to the applicant, after that, he filed application for certified copy of the order of acquittal on 24.08.2006. It was ready on 02.09.2006 and he took delivery of the same on 29.09.2006. Thereafter, a lot of time was taken in taking advice of the Advocate. Even if there was some doubt in the mind of the applicant about filing of the Appeal or Revision against the order of acquittal, that must have been cleared on 08.06.2006 when the Revision Application was dismissed pointing out the correct legal position. The applicant moved an application for certified copy of the order of the Trial Court on 24.08.2006. It shows that he had taken two and half months to make the application for certified copy after rejection of the Revision Application. There is no explanation for that delay. Certified copy was ready on 02.09.2006 but he took delivery of the same on 29.09.2006. It means the delivery of the certified copy was delayed by four weeks because of the fault on the part of the applicant. Having received that copy on 29.09.2006, he filed Application No. 182 of 2008 with Appeal on 10.01.2008, that is, after about fifteen months for which there is no satisfactory explanation. 4. In view of the above, Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 5. In the result, Criminal Application No. 182 of 2008 and Appeal No. 1322 of 2011 do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J)