1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR (1)CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 1192 & 1193 BOTH OF 2009 IN CRI.APPEAL NO: 189/2009 AND (2) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 1196 & 1197 BOTH OF 2009 IN CRI.APPEAL NO: 190/2009 (M/s Vinay Pipes & Tiles Factory (now known as Gima Manufacturing Pvt.Ltd.) vs. M/s Jumgaonkar Brothers ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr. A S Chandurkar, Adv. for applicant Mr Aniruddha Choubey, Adv for Respondent-State C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 25th August, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties, at length. 2. It appears that the grievance of the applicant-Company is that it was represented by one Sanjay Nemichand Potdar, who was the General Manager prosecuting the complaint case i.e. Summary Criminal Case Nos.1469 & 1470 both of 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura. The said Sanjay Potdar left the employment of the Company after he started his own production Unit some time in May or June 2007 in the name and style as “Rajura Refractories & Pipe Industries, manufacturing similar products as manufactured by M/s Vinay Pipes & Tiles. He neglected his duties to attend the court cases and did not attend on various dates as stated by learned JMFC on 28.11.2007 and 30.11.2007 and ultimately on 7.12.2007, the both the complaints were dismissed on the ground of absence of complainant. As a consequence thereof, the accused stood acquitted under section 256 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the applicant that no record was returned by the said Sanjay Potdar to the Company and, therefore, the company was not aware about the developments in 2 the case for want of information. When the present Manager contacted the earlier counsel in February 2009 and made inquiries, the dismissal of the complaints came to the notice of the complainant-company and, therefore, the present applications are filed seeking condonation of delay; so also leave to file Appeal u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the condonation of delay applications tooth and nail, on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the complainant to attend and prosecute the criminal complaints. 4. Be that as it may, it appears that on the ground that on 28.11.2007 and 30.11.2007 nobody was present on behalf of the complainant -Company, the Complaints came to be dismissed on 7.12.2007. Process was issued against the accused no.1 only on 5.7.2007. The accused no.2 was deleted. Learned Advocate for the applicant prayed that in the interest of justice, the complaints could have been heard on merits and considering the negligence of ex- employee, opportunity may be granted to the complainant to prosecute the Complaints so as to meet its logical end. In the interest of justice therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay, for the simple reason that it is not deliberate or intentional, but due to negligence on the part of an ex-employee, however, subject to the costs of Rs.1,000/- each in both the applications, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within a period of ten days. Delay is condoned. Applications are allowed. Cri.Application Nos.1193 & 1197 BOTH OF 2009 Issue notice to respondent, returnable on 8.9.2009. Mr. Aniruddha Choubey, learned Adv. waives notice on behalf of Respondent. JUDGE. sahare