1 (Crim applic 5809 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPICATION NO. 5809 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2009 (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. Nina Y. Mathur & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Rupesh D. Sohoni for Applicant Mr.A.H.H. Ponda for Respondent No.1 Mrs.V.R. Bhosale -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for leave to file an appeal. There is a delay of 1 year and 68 days in filing of the appeal. 2 (Crim applic 5809 of 2009) 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a bank and at the relevant time i.e. when the impugned order was passed by the Learned Trial Court on 7 th August, 2008, an administrator was appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune. He submitted that thereafter, the elections were held in October, 2008 and new Board of Directors were took the charge of the affairs of the bank in December,2008. It is submitted that thereafter, there was financial closing in March, 2009 and all the branch managers were busy in scrutiny and audit work. It is further submitted that the Applicant Bank's Manager was transferred to Pune Head Office of the Bank on 12 th May, 2009 and, therefore, an appeal could not be filed. It is, therefore, submitted that satisfactory explanation has been given by the Applicant in the application for condonation of delay. 4. This fact, however, was vehemently disputed by the counsel for the Respondent No.1. It is submitted that no explanation has been given by the Applicant Bank about what steps they have taken after a new committee took over the charge of the bank. 5. In my view, after having heard both the learned counsel at length, rights accrue in favour of the 3 (Crim applic 5809 of 2009) accused after an order of acquittal is passed by the Trial Court and, therefore, the delay caused in filing the appeal has to be satisfactorily explained by the Applicant. The proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are summary proceedings in view of section 143 of the N.I. Act. After acquittal of the accused, it is the duty of the complainant to diligently pursue the matter and file an application for leave to file appeal. In my view, the delay caused in this case has not been satisfactorily explained by the Applicant. The explanation given in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 is not sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay. Hence, application for condonation of delay is rejected. 6. Even on merits, I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant bank at length in order to ensure that no injustice would be caused to the Applicant Bank. He has taken me to the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has given cogent reason for dismissing the complaint filed by the Applicant Bank. It has been held after perusal of the record that the bank has not proved after the initial burden was rebutted by the accused that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. Even otherwise, no case is made out on merits on both 4 (Crim applic 5809 of 2009) the counts. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)