* 1 * W.P. 3461.2010 31.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2010 Shri. Uday Jawahar Kotnis ..... Petitioner V/S. Shri. Shashikant S. Ubhe ...... Respondent * * * * * * Mr. J. Shekhar i/by. J. Shekhar & Co., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavrat P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State-respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 31 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. The writ petition is shown on the board today for orders. As per the office record, respondent no.1 was not served. However, Mr. Joshi appears for respondent no.1 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama within a period of 2 weeks from today. At the request of both the counsel, the petition is taken up for admission. 2. The petition arises out of the order passed by the Magistrate’s * 2 * W.P. 3461.2010 31.1.2011 court dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The order of the Magistrate has been confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the Revision Application preferred therefrom. Admittedly, the period of limitation to file the complaint started running from 27th November 2006 and came to an end on 26th December, 2006. Therefore, the complaint by the petitioner ought to have been filed on/or before 26th December, 2006. According to the application for condonation of delay there was an extreme circumstance of the petitioner having met with an accident intervening the period of limitation. As per the application, he had met with an accident on 1st July, 2006 i.e. much before 26th November, 2006. He was admitted to the hospital on 13th July, 2006 for an operation. Then, he had to undergo second operation of which no date is mentioned. At the end, the application states that the doctors had advised him to have complete rest for 2 months. ½ Going by the dates stated in the application, the period of complete rest of 2 months got over in the month of October, 2006 i.e. even ½ before the period of limitation started running. In that * 3 * W.P. 3461.2010 31.1.2011 circumstance, both the courts have rightly held that the petitioner has not made out any case for condonation of delay. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Courts below. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]