1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO.216 of 2010 IN CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2010 (Gajanan Sewakram Vairagade ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another) ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri P.K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant, Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1, Shri C.F. Bhagwani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATED : 10 th DECEMBER, 2010 . 1. Heard Shri P.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1 and Shri C.F. Bhagwani, learned Advocate for non-applicant No.2. 2. This is an application for condoning the delay of five days occasioned to file criminal revision application. The applicant has preferred criminal revision application against the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2010 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur. By that order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant and confirmed the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2007 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo for 15 days. 3. In the application, it is averred that the last date for filing the revision application was 17th August, 2010. However, the applicant had gone to Ahemadabad on 16th August, 2010 and he could not meet his Counsel before leaving for Gujrat on 16th August, 2010. It is further averred that the applicant came back to Nagpur on 18th August, 2010 and on account of consecutive holidays between 19th August, 2010 and 22nd August, 2010, he approached his Counsel on 23rd August, 2010 for filing criminal revision application and accordingly the revision application was filed on 23rd August, 2010. It is in these circumstances, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of five days in filing the criminal revision application. 4. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply opposing the application. It is contended that no document is placed on record to substantiate that the applicant had gone to Gujrat on 16th August, 2010. The assertion that the applicant could not meet his Counsel prior to 16th August, 2010 before leaving for Gujrat was denied. In short, the assertions made in the application have been denied by non-applicant No.2. Shri Bhagwani submitted that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made 3 by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute by the judgment and order dated 18-1-2007 the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in default for 15 days. Against that decision, the applicant preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which as pointed out earlier, was dismissed on 18th May, 2010. 6. Having regard to the length of delay and having further due regard to the fact that the applicant is convicted and sentenced for simple imprisonment of one month and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in default for 15 days, if the application for delay is not allowed, the result would be that the criminal revision application stands dismissed on the technical ground. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be served by allowing the application for condonation of delay. 7. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of five days in filing the criminal revision application is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE pma