1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2008 Asit Haresh Bhansali & Anr. ... Petitioners (Orig.Accused No.) Vs. State of Maharahtra & Anr. ... Respondents (Orig.complainant) Mr. Ashok P.Mundargi, i/b. Shri Jehangir Khajotia,Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. S.VGajare, APP,for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. Benny Joseph a/w. Ms. Pallavi Dedhia, i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co.,Advocates, for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The complainant/respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused No.1 a company and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are directors of the company. As contended in para 2 of the complaint, accused Nos. 2 to 4, being the directors of accused No.1 Company were in charge and were and are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the accused No.1 and are fully responsible for 2 the transaction in dispute. Two cheques were issued by the company and were said to have been signed by accused No.4. Later on, those cheques were dishonoured. Process was issued against all the accused persons by the learned Metropolitan magistrate under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by order dated 29.6.2000. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision Application (Stamp) No.4312/2007 for quashing the said order along with Misc. Application No.1161/2007 for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the Revision Application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by order dated 14.1.2008 rejected the application No.1161/2007 on the ground that there was inordinate delay of about 7 years in filing the said application. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that accused No.1 Company had filed writ Petition No.1154/2001 challenging the issuance of process on several grounds and that petition was admitted. That petition is still pending before this Court and is heard today along with this petition. It is contended that in view of the pendency of that petition, accused Nos. 2 and 3 did not feel it necessary to file revision application against the issuance of process, but later on, they were advised to file a separate application. Hence, the delay. 3 4. After some discussion at the Bar and with consent of the learned Counsel or the parties, the present petition is allowed and the delay in filing Revision Application is condoned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall get the Criminal Revision Application (Stamp) No.4312 of 2007 registered and hear and dispose of the same on its own merits as early as possible and preferably within three months. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)