IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2007 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 433 OF 2007 MR. K. ABDULLA, PROPRIETOR OF WIBRO CONSTRUCTION CO. ... Applicant Versus MR. SHAIKH MAKSOOD ... Respondent Mr.Aldrin Monteiro,Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa,Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- D. B. BHOSALE, J. Date:- 24th January, 2008 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondent. By this application, the applicants have prayed for condonation of 83 day's delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in the proceeding U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I perused the application. The ground mentioned for condoning the delay is in paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 of the applications. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 read thus: " 1. The attorney for the Applicant after having applied for and collected the certified copy of the judgment and order had to leave for Kerala where the other family members reside. 2. The said certified copy was misplaced and the same was completely forgotten about. 3. It was only in the last week of January 2007 when Advocate for the Applicant reminded the attorney for the Applicant that the time limit may expire if any appeal is to be filed that the attorney started searching for the certified copy of the judgment and order. 4. Since the original certified copy could not be found another certified copy of the impugned order was applied for and delivered on 1.2.2007." The applicant has further stated that delay in filing the application for leave to appeal is purely bonafide and that too for no fault of the applicant thereby giving an impression that it was due to the laxity of the Attorney of the applicant. All the four paragraphs quoted above show that it was due to the laxity of the attorney of the applicant. However, on specific query made to the learned Counsel for the applicant, he fairly stated that the applicant had not appointed a power of attorney and the statements made in the application about the attorney are not correct. If that be so, in my opinion, the cause shown for condoning the delay of 83 day's is not only insufficient but is also misleading. In the circumstances, this application is rejected. D. B. BHOSALE, J. SMA