1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2010 Sanjeev G. Motwani ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Udaya Sankar Samudrala, adv. For the Petitioner. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 24, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The respondent no.2 had filed criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and this case was registered as criminal case no.38/02 and in this matter process was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and the summon was served upon him on 2.7.2000. It appears that initially the petitioner moved an application in the matter to recall the process. That application came to be rejected on the ground that Magistrate could not recall the process issued by him as held by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.859/06 challenging the issuance of process. Said writ petition came to be withdrawn on 25.9.2006 with liberty to file revision applications before the appropriate 2 Court. He filed revision application alongwith the application for condonation of delay on 2.2.2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was barred by limitation not only from the date on which the summons was served but also if the period of limitation is counted from the date when the petition was withdrawn from the High Court. Against that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition again. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the petition it is mentioned that revision application was filed on 17.11.2006. However, the impugned order clearly shows that the revision application was actually filed on 2.2.2007. Nowhere in the petition it is specifically mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly recorded that the revision was filed on 2.2.2007. Certified copy of the revision application filed before the Sessions Court is also not filed to show that it is actually filed on 17.11.2006 and not on 2.2.2007. The certified copy of the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shows that it was filed on 2.2.2007. Process was served on the petitioner on 15.2.2002. Even if the period of limitation is not counted from that date and if the date of limitation is to be counted from 25.9.2006 when writ petition was withdrawn, the revision 3 application could have been filed on or before 25.12.2006, while it was actually filed on 2.2.2007. No explanation was given about the delay in filing the revision application. It is to be noted that the application under Section 138 is pending for the last about 8 years. Even the particulars of the offence were explained to the accused in 2004 and the trial could not proceed because of one or the other petition filed by the accused . In view of these facts and also that there was unexplained delay in filing the revision application, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. 4 As the matter is pending for a very long time, the trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably by the end of October, 2010. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.9 OF 2010 Sanjeev G. Motwani ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Udaya Sankar Samudrala, adv. For the Petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 24, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The respondent no.2 had filed criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and this case was registered as criminal case no.568/02 and in this matter process was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and the summon was served upon him on 2.7.2002. It appears that initially the petitioner moved an application in the matter to recall the process. That application came to be rejected on the ground that Magistrate could not recall the process issued by him as held by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.268/06 challenging the issuance of process. Said writ petition came to be withdrawn on 3.8.2006 with liberty to file revision applications before the appropriate Court. He 5 filed revision application alongwith the application for condonation of delay on 2.2.2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was barred by limitation not only from the date on which the summons was served but also if the period of limitation is counted from the date when the petition was withdrawn from the High Court. Against that order petitioner has filed the present petition again. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the petition it is mentioned that revision application was filed on 17.11.2006. However, the impugned order clearly shows that the revision application was actually filed on 2.2.2007. Nowhere in the petition it is specifically mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly recorded that the revision was filed on 2.2.2007. Certified copy of the revision application filed before the Sessions Court is also not filed to show that it is actually filed on 17.11.2006 and not on 2.2.2007. The certified copy of the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shows that it was filed on 2.2.2007. Process was served on the petitioner on 2.7.2002. Even if the period of limitation is not counted from that date and if the date of limitation is to be counted from 3.8.2006 when writ petition was withdrawn, the revision 6 application could have been filed on or before 3.12.2006, while it was actually filed on 2.2.2007. No explanation was given about the delay in filing the revision application. It is to be noted that the application under Section 138 is pending for the last about 8 years. Even the particulars of the offence were explained to the accused in 2004 and the trial could not proceed because of one or the other petition filed by the accused . In view of these facts and also that there was unexplained delay in filing the revision applications, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, petition stands dismissed. 4 As the matter is pending for a very long time, the trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably by the end of October, 2010. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2010 Sanjeev G. Motwani ...Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Udaya Sankar Samudrala, adv. For the Petitioner. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 24, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The respondent no.2 had filed criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and this case was registered as criminal case no.1611/02 and in this matter process was issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and the summon was served upon him on 3.2.2003. It appears that initially the petitioner moved an application in the matter to recall the process. That application came to be rejected on the ground that Magistrate could not recall the process issued by him as held by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.858/06 challenging the issuance of process. Said writ petition came to be withdrawn on 8 25.9.2006 with liberty to file revision applications before the appropriate Court. He filed revision application alongwith the application for condonation of delay on 2.2.2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was barred by limitation not only from the date on which the summons was served but also if the period of limitation is counted from the date when the petition was withdrawn from the High Court. Against that order, petitioner has filed the present petition again. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the petition it is mentioned that revision application was filed on 17.11.2006. However, the impugned order clearly shows that the revision application was actually filed on 2.2.2007. Nowhere in the petition it is specifically mentioned that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly recorded that the revision was filed on 2.2.2007. Certified copy of the revision application filed before the Sessions Court is also not filed to show that it is actually filed on 17.11.2006 and not on 2.2.2007. The certified copy of the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shows that it was filed on 2.2.2007. Process was served on the petitioner on 3.2.2003. Even if the period of limitation is not counted from that date and if the date of limitation is to be counted 9 from 25.9.2006 when writ petition was withdrawn the revision application could have been filed on or before 25.12.2006, while it was actually filed on 2.2.2007. No explanation was given about the delay in filing the revision application. It is to be noted that the application under Section 138 is pending for the last about 8 years. Even the particulars of the offence were explained to the accused in 2004 and the trial could not proceed because of one or the other petition filed by the accused . In view of these facts and also that there was unexplained delay in filing the revision applications, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. 4 As the matter is pending for a very long time, the trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably by the end of October, 2010. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)