1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 608 OF 2009 Suvarna Laxman Sawant .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. J. B. Panke/Vishwasrao S. Deokar for the Applicant Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the State AND CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 609 OF 2009 Suvarna Laxman Sawant .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. J. B. Panke/Vishwasrao S. Deokar for the Applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton APP for the State. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 19th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. The accused in the Criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has challenged the order of the learned 2nd Ad-hoc District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Satara dated 04.09.2009 allowing the Revision 2 Application by condoning the delay on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- and for registering the complaint upon such payment. 2. The order of the learned Magistrate which came to be set aside refused permission to the complainant to file his complaint about 46 days beyond time. 3. The statutory time for filing a complaint is set out in Section 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Under the proviso to that section a specific statutory right is given to the complainant to have any delay in filing the complaint being condoned upon satisfying the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period. 4. The complainant in criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeks to prosecute the complaint for recovery of his money. There is no reason for him to otherwise delay that recovery by lodging the complaint late. That it is a criminal complaint which will end in sentence if the accused is convicted. 3 5. Under these circumstances the sufficient cause which is made out must be considered. 6. The sufficient cause made out in this case is of the medical condition of the complainant. It is evident by the certificates of the Rural Hospital, Bhor, District-Pune dated 18.04.2006. It shows that the complainant has lumber spondylitis and and was advised rest for two months. No substantiating documents of medical prescription or the medicines purchased are produced. 7. The learned Magistrate rejected the application for condoning of delay on the ground that it is not sufficiently explained. The learned Sessions Court has taken a more compassionate, pragmatic & practical view. The Sessions Court has not in terms exceeded to the reasoning laid down by the Apex Court in applications for condoning delay. These are to adopt a common sense approach to do substantial justice between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge has considered as observed by the Apex Court in the case of “Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another Vs. Godawaribai w/o Laxmansingh Gahirewar (1999(2) 4 M.L.J. 272) the philosophy and the spirit behind condoning of delay. 8. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is therefore manifestly just. He has ordered costs to be paid to the accused. He has required the parties to proceed on merits. He has not disallowed the complaint to be heard merely on technicalities. The order is correct and does not require any interference. Trial shall proceed as directed. 9. Revision Application Nos. 608 of 2009 and 609 of 2009 are dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)