IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2008. Fabrico India Private Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus Ecoboard Industries Limited & Anr. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2008. Fabrico India Private Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus Ecoboard Industries Limited & Anr. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.335 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.335 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.335 OF 2008. Fabrico India Private Limited & Anr. ..Petitioners. versus Ecoboard Industries Limited & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Prakash Naik, for the Petitioners, in Crim.W.P.No.333/2008. Dr.Mr.A.K. Barthakar, for the Respondent No.1, in Crim.W.P.No.333/2008. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.2, in Crim.W.P.No.333/2008. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Rule. The learned Advocate for the first Respondent waives service. The learned APP waives service for the second Respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved in these Petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal. - 2 - 2. The Petitioners have been arraigned as accused in three separate private complaints filed by the first Respondent. In the said complaints, process was issued by the learned Magistrate on 23rd May 2007. The Revision Applications were preferred by the Applicants on 16th November 2007 before the Sessions Court. Separate applications for condonation of delay were filed by the Petitioner. The said Applications were opposed by the first Respondent. According to the Petitioners, the delay was of 18 days. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order has rejected the applications for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners. While rejecting the applications for condonation of delay, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the delay was of one month and 27 days which has not been properly explained. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the period of limitation available was of 90 days and not of 30 days as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He pointed out that from the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay, it was crystal clear that the Petitioners were diligent and there was negligence on - 3 - their part. He submitted that the delay was only of 18 days and the same ought to have been condoned. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent pointed out that the Petitioners remained absent on the dates fixed before the learned Magistrate. He pointed out that though the Advocate for Petitioners received a copy of the complaint on 30th August 2007, the Petitioners waited till 16th November 2007 to file Revision Applications and there is no explanation for the delay after 30th August 2007. He, therefore, submitted that there was every justification for the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is well-settled proposition of law that a liberal approach is required to be adopted while deciding an application of condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. In the present case, the order issuing process was passed on 29th May 2007 and a summons was issued on 20th June 2007 which was made returnable on - 4 - 27th July 2007. The Petitioners appeared before the learned Trial Judge on 30th August 2007 through their Advocate. Alongwith the summons, the Petitioners were not served with the copies of the complaints. The copies of the complaints were obtained by the Advocate for the Petitioners on 30th August 2007. Applications for certified copies of the impugned orders were made on 4th October 2007 and the copies were ready on 8th October 2007. The Revision Applications were filed on 16th November 2007. 7. Perusal of the averments made in the applications shows that the Petitioners were not negligent and had taken steps for challenging the order issuing process. Even as per the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the delay was of one month and 27 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have taken a hyper-technical view of the matter by declining to condone the delay. The learned Judge ought to have condoned the delay. Prejudice, if any, caused to the first Respondent could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. 8. Therefore, the Petitions must succeed. Costs - 5 - are quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/- in each case. 9. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned judgements and orders dated 13th December 2007 are quashed and set aside and Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos.244, 245, 246 of 2006 filed by the Petitioners are allowed. The delay in filing Revision Applications is condoned subject to the condition of the petitioners paying costs of Rs.5,000/- in each application to the first respondent within a period of six weeks from today. The payment of costs will be a condition precedent. The deposit of amount of costs with the Sessions Court within the stipulated period will be treated as a sufficient compliance. (2) It is made clear that if compliance is not made within the stipulated time either by paying the costs to the first Respondent or by depositing the same with the Sessions Court, the order of the dismissal of the delay condonation applications will stand. - 6 - (3) If the Petitioners make compliance, the Revision Applications shall be registered and the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date on which amount of costs is deposited. (4) The Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. (5) The Parties and the Sessions Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]