1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 455 OF 2008 Kishor Namdeorao Kachi. ... Applicant. V/s. Lalit Rajendra Purohit & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms. Pallavi N.D. for the Applicant. Mrs. A.T. Javeri, APP for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 06th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Petitioner is the Original Complainant, who moved the Trial Court by filing a complaint (Summary Criminal Case No.60198 of 2005) alleging offences punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. From the record it appears that learned J.M.F.C., Pune passed an order on 10th January 2007 below Exhibit 63. Exhibit 63 is an application filed by the present Petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. 3. When this application was allowed by the J.M.F.C., aggrieved thereby, the First Respondent/Accused preferred a Criminal Revision Application being Criminal Revision Application No.675 of 2005 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the order under challenge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Application and 2 proceeded to dismiss the complaint by reversing the order of the Trial Court. 4. After the matter was argued for some time, it came to my notice that the Trial Court had recorded substantial evidence of witnesses. It is clear that the application was made for condoning delay during the stage of recording evidence. 5. To my mind, it was not necessary for the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional jurisdiction to have gone into all the aspects of the matter at the stage at which the matter stood before the Trial Court. It is not as if the First Respondent was remediless and so seriously prejudiced. By keeping open the controversy so also all contentions, the Revisional Court could have allowed the trial to continue and culminate into an order either of dismissal of the complaint and the acquittal of the accused or his conviction. In the peculiar facts of this case when substantial evidence was recorded any wider controversy need not have been gone into and considered. 6. Considering the peculiar facts of this case, the order under challenge is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file of the Trial Court for being proceeded with further at the stage at which the order dated 10th January 2007 came to be passed. However, despite the complaint proceeding before the Trial Court, Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to raise 3 the issue of the complaint being barred by limitation at the stage of arguments and the learned Judge should consider it in accordance with law. Further, if the final order in the complaint is adverse to the First Respondent, he can impugn the same and during the course of such challenge, he can raise all pleas including that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was time barred. All this is permitted even if the Revisional Court’s order is set aside. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. The Application is allowed in these terms. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)