1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2009. Ambadas S/o Punaji Latpate ...Applicant. VERSUS. Ajinath S/o Ramrao Sonwane ...Respondent. ------------------------------------------ Mr. Abhijit S. More,Advocate for applicant. Mr. B.R.Kedar, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) DATE : 7th September,2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Mr. B. R. Kedar Advocate for respondent is absent. 2. There is delay of 22 days in filing of the appeal. The explanation given in paragraph no.5 of the application would show that, due to the fact that the applicant is Government Servant. He was unable to visit Aurangabad within reasonable period. Perhaps, he could not avail leave,the delay appears to be unintentional. No reply is filed to the application. Hence, explanation given in Paragraph no. 5 is accepted. The delay is condoned. 3. So far as leave to appeal is concerned, it appears that, the cheque was issued by the respondent was dishonoured. The reasons of the learned Trial Judge would show that, there is no proper service of the demand notice, the acquittal was rendered. The learned Judge of the Trial Court held that, respondent issued cheque in 2 question. It is necessary to examine whether the demand notice can be regarded as duly served and whether the sole acquittal ground is justified. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted under section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Admit. 5. The appellant to furnish private paper book. 6. Call for Record and Proceedings. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) MTK/cri.830.09