IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 693 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 693 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 693 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3892 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3892 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3892 OF 2007 M/s.Bheda Brothers ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. M/s.Sarvottam Daal & Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Manoj Khatri for the Applicant. Mr.S.M. Mirajkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.D.R. More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year 230 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 3. An application was filed by the applicant against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. This complaint was - 2 - dismissed by the Magistrate for want of prosecution of the complainant on 10th February, 2006. Thereafter, after a lapse of 1 year and 230 days, this present application has been filed for leave to file an appeal and application is made for condonation of delay in filing this application. The only ground mentioned in this application is that the applicant could not remain present on 10th February, 2006 as he had undergone cataract operation on the left eye. Secondly, it is mentioned in para 10 that respondent no.2 had given an assurance to the applicant that he would make the payment of the said cheque amount and further, since the applicant was not keeping good health, they did not pursue the matter before the learned Magistrate. It is stated that the respondent no.2 had gone back with the assurance and informed the applicant that he would not make the payment and thereafter, the present application has been filed for leave to file appeal. 4. In my view, the explanation given by the applicant for condoning the delay of 1 year and 230 days is not sufficient. Right has accrued in favour of the - 3 - respondent on the dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate. There is a gross delay of 1 year and 230 days. It was obvious that the applicant was not diligent in pursuing his legal right. The explanation given by the applicant, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. Delay application is dismissed. Application for leave to file appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)