{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2009 Rustum s/o Babasaheb Pawar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.G.C.Navandar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for the State Mr.A.R.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By this revision application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 19.08.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.97/2009 by which the application filed by the applicant, for condonation of delay in preferring criminal appeal, is dismissed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. {2} 3. It is not disputed that criminal case RCC No. 2129/2005 was filed against the applicant before the JMFC, Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. This case stood disposed off vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 thereby convicting the applicant for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act and sentencing him to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to suffer SI for three months. It was further directed that on realization of the fine amount, Rs.24,400/- be paid to the applicant by way of compensation. 4. It appears that the amount of fine is deposited by the applicant, however, as there was no substantive sentence, the applicant had not challenged the said order of conviction. 5. It also appears that though the fine amount was paid and the chapter was closed, yet due to the said conviction, the employer of the applicant has taken note of the same and has issued show cause notice to him and hence the criminal appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed. It is a matter of academic discussion only, as already the due amount is paid by the applicant. In such circumstances, the delay, which is satisfactorily explained in the application ought to have been condoned by the trial court. However, it appears that too technical view is taken by the trial court and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. In the premise, the application succeeds. The {3} order dated 19.08.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.97/2009 thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay is hereby quashed and set aside. The delay in preferring the criminal appeal is hereby condoned. Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln290-09